Evidence of meeting #92 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm wondering if we can amend the wording a bit to be more consistent with what's represented. There is a specific part in the proposed new clause 8.1 that says:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the right to self-determination of Métis collectivities that are not represented by a Métis government
What I would suggest is that it should read, “the right to self-determination of Métis collectivities that have not authorized a Métis government”. With that subamendment I think we would be prepared to support that amendment.
I'm just hearing it on the fly, and I'd welcome the thoughts of the team we have here, who could speak to that a bit better.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Sure. I will note that for it to be accepted, it will need to be submitted in writing to the clerk.
While we're waiting to see if that is—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay, we can have a discussion first.
Do you want to put that to the officials?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Yes, that's fine.
Officials, are you fine with having the questions?
Mr. Battiste, can you just restate the question, so the officials know what's coming at them?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Based on this motion that the NDP has put forward, are there any issues with the consistency with the current legislation as tabled, and how can we suggest ways in which it can be more amicably done, to be consistent with the legislation?
4:10 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
NDP-4.2, as you mentioned, uses the phrase “are not represented by a Métis government”. The way the bill otherwise deals with the relationship between a Métis government and a Métis collectivity uses the concept of being “authorized to act on behalf of”.
If that text were changed along the lines of “authorized to act on behalf of” as opposed to “represented by”, that would be more consistent with the existing terms of the act. It would not change the meaning that's intended, if I understand the intention correctly of NDP-4.2.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Based on that, I think I'd like to propose the subamendment that has just been given to the clerk for that little tweaking on an otherwise very well-thought-out amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
What I'm going to suggest is that we suspend for five minutes so that we have it in writing. We'll get it distributed, so that everybody can look at it, and then we'll come back.
At this point, we'll suspend at 4:15 p.m. We'll come back at 4:20 p.m.
We'll make sure that everybody has that in their hands, and we can have a discussion.
The meeting is suspended.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'll ask everybody to take their seats.
Mr. Battiste, I'll go to you.
We have a subamendment before the committee now, if you're going to move it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I am moving this.
It's just taking out “represented” and replacing it with “authorized” to be consistent, so that's the small thing that I'm moving.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
After this, will we go back to the full amendment?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay, because Gary wants to speak to the full thing.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Sure. As the one lawyer at the table, I'm happy to do so.
As I was explaining before the break, that change of phrase would make the text of that more consistent with the way the bill describes these concepts already.
The relationship between a government and a collectivity is one of “authorized to act on behalf of”, as opposed to “represented by”. “Represented by” isn't used elsewhere in this bill, but that other concept of “authorized” is there, so we would know what it means.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm not seeing anyone else with their hand up to speak to this, so I'll call the vote on the subamendment to NDP-4.2 as put forward by Mr. Battiste.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Now we'll go back to the discussion on NDP-4.2 as amended.
I have, first of all, Mr. Vidal, who wanted to speak, and then I have Mr. Viersen next on my list.
Mr. Vidal, it's over to you.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Can I just clarify, Mr. Chair, that we have paper copies of that coming, so that we actually have the whole thing in front of us? Is that correct?
