Evidence of meeting #149 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 line.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I'd like to seek the advice of the department with respect to this amendment.
Hélène Laurendeau Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
I would say that Madame May has a point—that it doesn't specifically refer to the traditional hereditary government of unceded lands—but it does cover every form of government, including self-governing nations and other treaty holders. It also covers the band councils as they currently exist, where they exist, but it doesn't exclude the traditional hereditary government per se.
The reason it's silent is that how the traditional governments are represented is also a discussion that happens among indigenous people themselves. Sometimes they're included in the more formal government form, either through self-government or others, or they are included or consulted by band councils. The intent behind being silent is to leave the full spectrum open to indigenous people to make their choice around that. If we were to be specific, we would probably be interfering in how they are choosing to actually make the place for their hereditary chiefs or form of government. We wanted to be respectful of that by leaving it open to be determined internally by indigenous people themselves.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
First, I would like to thank Ms. Laurendeau for having expressed her point of view.
We think the Green Party's motion is excellent and we support it.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The Conservative amendment is also very good in specifically referencing Métis, although I believe the Métis would be more likely to fall in this definition.
We've had recent actions by the federal government that suggest it doesn't believe hereditary chiefs on Witsuwit'en territory have any rights. The appearance of militarized RCMP to arrest hereditary chiefs protesting peacefully suggests a lack of respect for hereditary governments.
In particular because of those recent arrests, I find it unlikely that they would qualify under this legislation to negotiate for funding if we didn't specifically recognize the integrity and the authenticity of hereditary chiefs who are operating within a framework that falls outside the Indian Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Seeing no further debate, we'll move to a vote on PV-1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to CPC-1.
Mr. Yurdiga.
David Yurdiga Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have this amendment in here because there's confusion between Métis nation and settlements. Settlements are land-based and have their own governing body. They are unique and separate. The Métis nation is a society, and settlements are governing bodies. They are two different things.
We've had many officials come here. We've consulted with all indigenous groups, but it seems they are always excluded for some reason. It's important that we recognize them. We don't want to exclude anyone, so I think this is an important step towards ensuring that everyone is consulted. Sometimes we assume something that is not the case in reality.
My amendment is this:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:
“ment or other entity, including a Métis Settlement and the Métis Settlements General Council, that is authorized to act on behalf of”
It just achieves clarity, to place more emphasis on ensuring that settlements have a voice.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Once again, Madam Chair, this is very much in line with the previous amendment. The definition is broad enough as is. It contemplates groups, including the settlements, so I think it's important to keep it as broad as possible and not to narrow the scope or limit it to just one or two additional groups. The broad definition allows for indigenous communities to be able to define the groups and organizations that can seek the funding.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Ms. Laurendeau, in listening to your previous explanation, I thought you were defining it as broadly as it could be defined. If we started to list groups, then I'm assuming we would have to list everyone within it, but we're much broader without doing that. Am I interpreting what you said correctly?
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
You are interpreting correctly. What I said about the hereditary construct applies here. If we start to list, we will exclude people by not having them on the list. The suggestion of the definition is to keep it as broad and as inclusive as possible.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
With all due respect, the Métis people have had, and continue to have, this discussion because, if we go with what is being proposed, the broad definition being used actually creates further animosity and it will create further questions. My discussion, even with the Métis people, regarding the language and governing is different.
Governments only recognize.... I can be corrected, but my understanding is that only governing the settlements...would be only recognized as government. Mr. Yurdiga said.... And I support what he's saying, because the confusion comes from the society and the nations that are being struck at various levels. The selection of their leaders is not necessarily done by the residents. There are so many questions floating around with no answers, and looking to the government actually, again, provides more chaos than clarity on this very important thing.
The Métis people—the scholars, the youth, the elders and other leaders I speak to—want clarification. They want to be included with how important this legislation is for their ability to retain Michif, to retain the languages of their choice that they have—be they Cree, Saulteaux, Dene, Blackfoot—across Canada. When we speak about the Métis in provinces, they're often the responsibility of the provinces. We are speaking of the federal level, and this creates further animosity again. The Métis children who are attending provincially run schools won't necessarily have the option to apply for funding so that they can be taught or can continue to speak their languages.
From my perspective, the government isn't doing its part, being respectful of Métis people across Canada.
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We were talking about having a broad definition, and I understand that, but it hasn't worked well for the Métis settlements. When the officials were here, we talked about Métis settlements, and all of a sudden we heard, “Oh, we contacted the Métis nation”; well, they're separate, so they were excluded. If we don't have a definition that separates a society from a governing body, and one is excluded, and we see time and time again that they're always excluded.... This is ensuring that the settlements are part of the discussion. They can participate. By having a broad definition, we see a lot of issues, and this is not right. Settlements are governing bodies, and I think they should be identified as such.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay, seeing no further debate, I'll move to a vote on CPC-1.
(Amendment negatived)
This brings us to the end of clause 2. There have been no amendments to clause 2.
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
There are no proposed amendments to clauses 3 and 4.
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to on division)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
That brings us to clause 5.
(On clause 5)
The first amendment we have is NDP-2. If NDP-2 is adopted, LIB-01 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
We move that Bill C-91, in clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4, with the following:
“guages, regardless of how the users of those languages communicate;”
I want to say that given the number of amendments being proposed to clause 5, we aren't out of the woods. I think that ideally someone should take the trouble of putting the text and the potential amendments online—unfortunately we don't have access to the screens, if I understand correctly. This may take quite a long time and does affect the LIB-01 amendment. You read it and you mentioned that it had an impact on the Liberal amendment.
Thank you very much.