Canadian Heritage Committee on March 18th, 2019

[Hélène Laurendeau]

In the past there has been a preoccupation with respect to research and study and access to the results. That said, the intent behind the amendment is one that has a purpose. However, I would say—and I wouldn't want to move into other amendments that will come later—that there might be another way to address similar things without necessarily creating a burden that would be a little convoluted by maybe making obligations that would exclude other possibilities.

Sorry, I'm not expressing myself very well. What I mean is that it may be a little too procedural to talk about informing every step of the way about progress. That said, finding a way to provide access to the results is something that would probably be desirable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

If you seek it, I think you would find general support on this side with some amendments.

In part, what Madame Laurendeau just said was exactly our thinking on this. We think we have covered proposed subsection (2.1) elsewhere. We don't want it to be overly burdensome.

I think one of the principles we heard clearly from witnesses is to get as much money to the communities as possible. Let's not overly bureaucratize this piece. We think we might be more precise in subsection (2.1) elsewhere in the amendments.

We take your point on paragraph (1)(b). As long as we could strike “as well as other things” and take out proposed subsection (2.1), we would make that subamendment.

I think you'd see that sort of a compromise on your amendment, Ms. May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

It's Mr. Shields, and then Ms. May, unless....

Actually, sorry, you proposed a subamendment. I'll turn to the subamendment, in which case it's Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Just to remind members of the committee, I'm here with no powers whatsoever. I'm not a member of the committee. My amendments are deemed to have been made. I can say nothing about it, pro or con.

I'd prefer the entire amendment to be carried. But I'm in the weirdest position in the history of the Parliament of Canada, with a special motion passed in every committee that essentially applies only to me. That's my problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I believe we have heard that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

But thank you for asking me, Randy. It was very charitable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod]

Could we...? Oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

He wasn't on the subamendment.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Go ahead.

[Cathy McLeod]

Could we hear the wording of the line, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Yes.

Mr. Boissonnault.

[Randy Boissonnault]

That Bill C-91, in clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 10 with the following:

(1)(b) may take into account a community assessment, with the consent of the Indigenous community in respect of which the assessment was undertaken

[Cathy McLeod]

It's still better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Is there any other discussion about the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This brings us to PV-6, which has been subamended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This brings us to CPC-2. I will say that if CPC-2 is adopted, LIB-10 and LIB-10.1 cannot be moved. If CPC-2 is defeated, so is LIB-10, as they are identical.

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's taking me a minute to get through my pages. What page are we at for this one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

It's page 36.

[Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

What we were trying to accomplish.... Again, I would go to the officials, as we heard fear from many witnesses around the Statistics Canada.... Even with the word “may”, there was still that fear expressed by many.

Is that the right one?

[Randy Boissonnault]

We're with you—Stats Canada and Library and Archives. We agree.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

LIB-10 is identical, so that's gone.

This brings us to LIB-10.1.

LIB-10.1, because of CPC-2, cannot be moved because of the fact it covered the same lines. I read that out when I went through the consequentials. I'm just trying to discuss—because it's two whole paragraphs sitting here—whether there is something to be done. This addresses, in fact, I believe.... The reason I'm flagging it is that Ms. May, when she raised her issues, had actually flagged these issues that are in LIB-10.1.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Can we get consent to address these? Or do we require consent? Can we get that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

If there were a desire to revisit the 10.1 question—I'm just putting it out there for everyone, as I don't know if you've seen LIB-10.1—the only way to do that would be to have unanimous consent to reverse the decision on CPC-2 and then do 10.1.

I'm going to let everyone look at it so that you see what it's doing, because it's not reversing that part you talked about, Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod]

Madam Chair, I think on principle we indicated that anything that came to the table today we wouldn't support revisiting, so....

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Ms. McLeod, with respect, I think in the spirit of moving this along.... While you indicated that at the beginning and I think you're disappointed and you're correct on that at that time, I think that given where we are, we are trying to improve the bill. I think there's a genuine effort to do so. I think the language itself is somewhat plain. It does really speak to an amendment that you brought forward and we supported. I would really encourage you to look at this and maybe give your opinion. Just don't base it on principle, as you indicated earlier.