Evidence of meeting #128 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
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Yes.
Our legislative clerk will read the subamendment so that all members are aware of what the vote is about.
Legislative Clerk
With the subamendment, the amendment would now read:
That Bill C-391, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 1 with the following:
“the provinces and territories, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including Article 31 of the text, must develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy to promote and support the return of aboriginal cultural property, wherever situated, to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The strategy must include measures to
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Does everyone have the subamendment?
Is there any further debate?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
I am really sorry. I may have missed something. Have the definitions been voted on yet? Have we voted on the amendments we proposed to the definitions?
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Okay.
I do not know if I can ask everyone's permission to go back to them, but we had submitted an amendment. The Conservatives submitted another one as well. I think we passed right over them. I have consulted with Mr. Saganash about this and I feel that the term “Aboriginal cultural property”, which we included in the amendment, is really important. As I was saying to Mr. Googoo earlier, we have to show our respect in this matter.
So I would like to throw myself on the mercy of my committee colleagues.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I need to refer to my legislative clerk for some assistance on this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
When I first read LIB-1, I mentioned it would remove the ability to move NDP-1 and CPC-1. Speaking with the legislative clerk, I have learned we would end up with contrary decisions. It's closed; we carried it.
We actually subamended and then passed LIB-1, so It's closed. We should be carrying on, because the definition section was already covered with clause 2 carrying.
Go ahead, Mr. Boissonnault.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
I agree, and I believe my colleagues on the Liberal side agree, but I will say to our colleagues in the NDP and the Conservative Party that we will send your text to Mr. Casey and it will be in front of the committee, because definitions, we feel, should be left to the people who are doing the study on the national strategy.
Your ideas will not be lost; we just don't want to constrain or overburden the process. Our fundamental belief is to respect what you're doing but to leave the people working on the project to decide definitions.
Your work will not be lost. We will forward it to the committee responsible for the national strategy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Then we are still discussing.... Right now I'm catching up on where we left off.
Go ahead, Mr. Nantel.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you.
In the bill, line 6 in clause 2, it says:
“The following definitions apply in this Act.”
Then the terms are defined. It seems to me that there is a difference between the French text and the English text. Mr. Boissonnault is probably better able to grasp the nuances than I am.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Perhaps the legislative clerk can assist us in understanding where we're at with our clause-by-clause study just to clarify exactly what's happened with what we've done with clause 2 as amended, which we have voted on.
Legislative Clerk
Let me go back a minute, to amendment LIB-1. That amendment was asking that Bill C-391, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 11 on page 1 with the following:
2 in this Act, minister means the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
By doing that, everything in lines 6 to 11 was replaced. In other words, the definition that was there is no longer there. There is no longer a definition, because the amendment withdrew it. The lines that were removed therefore cannot be amended.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
My thanks to the clerk for that clarification.
Mr. Boissonnault, in all good conscience, in the same way as you told me that our work on the definition would not be lost and that our text would at least be submitted to the legislative drafters, I would like to point out one other thing. The English definition reads:
“aboriginal cultural property includes objects of historical”.
In French, the word “includes” does not appear. It does not say that Aboriginal cultural property includes an object of historical importance, but that it is one. There is a nuance here,
just so you know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay, but I repeat that that was all taken out. We passed the amendment and the definition is no longer there.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Ah, yes, that's true. It was about lines 6 to 12. Okay, I understand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Now, we need to pick up where we left off.
All right.
We were on LIB-2, which was amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
That brings us to LIB-3.
If LIB-3 is adopted, CPC-2 and NDP-3 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines.
Does anyone want to discuss LIB-3?
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
Madam Chair, this amendment is really about cleaning up the text.
It would replace line 16 on page 1 with the addition of, after “aboriginal”, “human remains and cultural property”.
We also missed words in line 18, so it would say “include measures that seek to”. We also add again, “human remains or cultural property”, after “indigenous”.
In line 4 on page 2, it would say again “human remains or cultural property to return such”, and then the word “material” is new.
Again cleaning up some language, it would replace lines 6 to 8 on page 2 with the following: “support the recognition that”, adding “human remains”. Again, after “access to that", " material” is an additional word.
Then it would replace line 13 on page 2 with “human remains and cultural property; and”.
Then the largest cleanup, if you will, in this clause is replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 2 with the following: “resolve any conflicting claims to Indigenous human remains or cultural property, whether within or between Indigenous communities or organizations, in a manner that is respectful”, and it continues. Then we have “that allows claimants to be self-represented”.
That's a lot of cleanup.
I'll walk people through it, because it's hard to see what's there and what wasn't.
Liberal
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
First of all, would it be possible to get the text we've just read?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
You don't have it in front of you? It should be in the pile of amendments.