Evidence of meeting #12 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
My question, though, is what would happen if we left band councils protected and removed the section around “Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agency of Her Majesty”, and just put band councils?
4:45 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Department of Justice
I can't speculate on how this provision would be interpreted. Clearly it wouldn't target the government; it would simply protect the first nation. It is possible.... There was a previous question that was asked by one member of this committee a few minutes ago about whether including this clause might actually weaken an existing doctrine because Parliament would have tried to modify it by adding something.
I think that withdrawing the dimension of Her Majesty, the crown, in this provision might have the effect of sending the signal that Parliament wanted to amend that doctrine. In other words, it might actually create a situation where the courts would be unclear on the state of the law with respect, for example, to the limited immunity or the restricted immunity doctrine.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I don't have the legal background to determine whether removing the government from this clause would cause the courts to be uncertain of the interpretation of the clause. I guess that would remain to be tested in courts, presumably.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you.
I wasn't sure where the conversation would go or end up. But what I will say is we had the broad change adopted by overturning the chair, and I believe that is completely out of order. In terms of this amendment, which is arguably problematic, I can assure--to the best of my knowledge--that this is not within the minister's mandate to go forward with the bill without this clause. So if you want to invest in this clause, it's worthwhile to have that as background.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
It will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 9 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Shall clause 10 carry?
(Clause 10 agreed to)
Now we will go to the short title, and we have an amendment there. I'll go to Ms. Crowder to speak to her amendment. We are now back to clause 1, members.
Ms. Crowder, you have the floor.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Very briefly, I think that the amount of discussion that we've had today and certainly from the witnesses calls into question whether this is truly a gender equality bill. So I am proposing that the short title be amended to say, “This Act may be cited as the Act amending certain definitions and registration provisions of the Indian Act."
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Yes, I think this is disingenuous. The title of the bill is “An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada...”. That's very clear. I think what the opposition has been doing is characterizing that title quite differently, and it's quite clear that title does circumscribe what Bill C-3, as tabled in the House, is trying to do.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I didn't actually speak to the admissibility of this particular amendment. It is in fact admissible as it currently is because of the changes implemented by the committee here this afternoon.
For the benefit of members, I'm advised by the legislative clerk that a change in the title would have to be compelled by a change to the bill. In other words, as has been done here through the amendment to clause 2, when you make a substantive change to the bill that would compel a change to the title, then it would be and is admissible.
If I can just go backwards, had the amendment not been adopted as it related to clause 2, this amendment in fact probably would not have been admissible. I say that just to inform members of how these things work.
The amendment is admissible. Is there any further debate on the clause 1 amendment by Ms. Crowder?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Okay, we'll go to a recorded vote on amendment NDP-0.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
That's the title. We'll ask for a recorded vote on this.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 1. This is the short title. I'll just remind members that we also will have the title. That will be another question that's coming.
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Next, shall the title carry?
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Hang on a second here. What is the question again?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
