Evidence of meeting #126 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd 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.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The amendment proposes to delete the definition of “Aboriginal cultural property”. It's quite simple. We propose that the communities establish the definition, not us. Furthermore, the definition does not exist in the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I just want to clarify one thing.
I'm sorry. I'm speaking in English because sometimes I think faster in English.
We're on LIB-1, which deals with the definition of “minister”.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Amendment LIB-1 proposes that Bill C-391, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 12 on page 1 with the following:
Definition of Minister
2 In this Act, Minister means the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I just want to clarify that LIB-1 refers to replacing lines 6 to 11 on page 1. If that is done—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Right. The reason I'm flagging this is that if lines 6 to 12 on page 1 are replaced in LIB-1, then LIB-1.1 cannot be moved.
Okay, why don't we go back?
Monsieur Breton is moving LIB-1. It's making a change to lines 6 to 12. Is that right?
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
In English, it's lines 6 to 11, and in French, it's lines 6 to 12 because of the translation.
October 23rd, 2018 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Right, I understand.
Monsieur Breton has moved LIB-1.
Is there any discussion about LIB-1?
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
There is subamendment LIB-1.1, Madam Chair. Before we vote on the amendment, the subamendment must be proposed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I wasn't going to a vote yet.
I'm going to Mr. Blaney. We're just discussing LIB-1. We're not voting on it.
Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
First, I would like to ask a question of Mr. Breton, who is proposing the amendment.
Mr. Breton, you want to remove the definition of “indigenous cultural property” from the bill. I think that's what your amendment says, but you want to leave the definition of “minister” as is?
Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
Mr. Breton's amendment is relevant and concerns what I argued earlier. I just discussed it with Mr. Boissonnault. We have observed that sometimes the Liberals are afraid to include definitions in a bill. Yet definitions are the foundation of a bill. We are talking about the repatriating indigenous cultural property, but people want to remove the definition. I find that, from the outset, this has the effect of radically watering down the bill, especially since the Canadian Museum of History recommends that we make a distinction between indigenous cultural property that comes from Canada and property that comes from outside the country.
Why is the museum making this recommendation? Because it would clarify which items in public collections outside Canada the legislation applies to. This is an extremely important issue, which has been set aside, but is contained in the document that was presented to us yesterday, after the deadline for tabling amendments in committee. That's why I recommend that the committee establish a new deadline for the submission of recommendations and that we choose to adjourn. We would have time to review the new information that has been brought to the committee's attention that will allow us to make informed decisions, including on the proposal to remove a definition. We think it's better to have a definition, or even to make the definitions clearer.
I just want to clarify that there is both public and private property. There is also indigenous property in Canada and other property outside the country. This has important consequences for the owners of these items as well as for museums. In this case, we are also talking about indigenous communities that wish to repatriate these items. It is important that our approach be open, but that it not infringe on individual rights to private property.
That is exactly what recommendations of the Canadian Museum of History are about. As I have already said, this is why it seems important to me at this time that we have more time to consider the recommendations of the Canadian Museum of History, more specifically with regard to Mr. Breton's amendment, which proposes that the definition be removed. I find that starting by removing the definitions is a curious way to start a bill.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
With regard to the amendment, I think it is important to give communities the opportunity to define the extent of their indigenous cultural property. That is what is at stake. As Mr. Nantel made clear, it is important to show respect for indigenous peoples. As we know, a tenuous definition, like a very broad definition in a piece of legislation, can cause problems later on. It is therefore important to give indigenous peoples the necessary flexibility to define terms properly. It is with this in mind that we have tabled the amendment.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
I have heard the comment of Mr. Boissonnault, who is defending himself, but the amendment I am presenting is the opposite. We are talking about 12 more lines to define these terms. The definition is intended to be broad and is intended to open up opportunities in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They are also in keeping with the very sincere feeling that excited me when I asked people about the spiritual and sacred dimension of these artifacts. In any case, my amendment is of a completely different nature. However, in order to debate your amendment, I would like to tell you that my amendment goes in the opposite direction by adding 12 lines. Needless to say, I am opposed to your proposal.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
I won't repeat what Mr. Boissonnault mentioned. It's exactly where I was going. There may be variations from one community to another. We're talking about respect for indigenous peoples and communities. So let these people tell us what is meant by the term “indigenous cultural property”.
Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
Madam Chair, the greatest mark of respect we can show towards indigenous communities is to call things by their name and define them well.
I am surprised to see that the Liberals will often express great intentions, but when it comes to making them a reality, taking concrete action, that fades away.
The definition proposed in the bill by Liberal MP Bill Casey is that “Aboriginal cultural property” involves “objects of historical, social, ceremonial or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.” This seems to me to be a rather broad and inclusive definition.
I come back to what I was saying earlier: there are objects that are outside Canada and others that are here in Canada.
I come again to the proposed definition of an “object of historical, social, ceremonial or cultural importance to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada”. What the Canadian Museum of History is asking us to consider is whether the object is kept in collections outside Canada or in public collections in Canada.
We see that there is a distinction between collections that are held outside Canada and collections that are held in Canada. If the law applies to objects kept in Canada, it is recommended that we write a more complex, dense text than a summary may contain.
The museum told us that consultation with senior officials of the Department of Justice and with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada is strongly recommended, as the current wording has important implications, particularly with respect to negotiations on comprehensive land claims between Canada and indigenous peoples, self-government negotiations and individual constitutional rights to private property.
We are therefore talking about rights recognized in the Constitution, individual rights to private property.
It is also important to note that, in the definition of “indigenous cultural property”, we have not yet considered what has been raised several times by witnesses, in other words, human remains.
In this regard, the inclusion of ceremonial objects and human remains is consistent with Article 12(2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory.
Madam Chair, one element that seems fundamental to us, and that is raised in the brief presented to us yesterday, is that it is important that the legislation apply only to public collections so that it doesn't infringe the rights of persons who own a private collection. I would remind you that we didn't have time to read the brief or the opportunity to propose amendments related to the recommendations of what I call the “heritage guardians”.
There are important issues at stake, Madam Chair. I remind you that we are open to the spirit of the bill, but we want it to be done well. We don't want to end up with what I would call “a bill that has been emasculated from its very essence”, for example, by removing the fundamental definition of what constitutes indigenous cultural property. Instead, we want to come up with a bill that provides a good framework for what we want to do. We want to give communities the opportunity to repatriate their cultural property, but taking into account the legal context and rights that are enshrined in the Constitution.
In this regard, we cannot support a proposal to remove a definition. On the contrary, this definition must be much more elaborate.
Madam Chair, I hope you will tell me how I should proceed, once we have debated this amendment, to ensure that we can have more time, really, to read the recommendations that have been submitted to us, not only by the Canadian Museum of History, but also by a museum in British Columbia.
There are important elements to consider. We don't want to rush the work, which is why it seems essential to us to have more time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
You've talked about the timing piece, but I want to clarify that what we are debating is LIB-1, which is replacing lines 6 to 11 on page 1 with “In this Act, Minister means the Minister of Canadian Heritage.”
We're not debating the other aspects. We're debating this amendment.
Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
What we're debating, Madam Chair, is the removal of the definition of “indigenous cultural property” and keeping the definition of “minister”. That's what Mr. Breton told me earlier.