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.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
I'm very sorry, Madame Dabrusin.
We also have a motion which seems like the only gracious thing to do, which is an acceptance of the government's apology. I did say the government, not the committee. So, we accept your apology. However, it is out of the question that we study these in a few seconds or on the fly.
Consequently, I ask that today's clause-by-clause study be adjourned and that this study be postponed until the next meeting of the committee.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay, I understand you're asking to adjourn this meeting. That's not debatable, so that will go to a vote.
(Motion negatived)
All right, so we are going ahead.
We are now looking at the clause-by-clause for Bill C-91.
(On clause 2)
The first amendment we have is NDP-1.
Mr. Nantel, do you want to present your amendment?
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Yes. It pertains to clause 2.
This is what it says:
That Bill C-91, in clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 3 with the following: Commissioner means the Indigenous Commissioner of lndigenous
There's no comma there; it's just an insertion.
If you want to elaborate, please do.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Before I go to Ms. Jolibois, I apologize. When we were looking at all the motions, I skipped one part, which is that pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.
Now we're on clause 2, and we'll just pick up from there.
Ms. Jolibois.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
With all due respect, I'm going to reiterate that the government is rushing through this process.
[Member spoke in Dene]
[English]
I speak Dene. This legislation is so important, yet the government is rushing this very important piece of legislation through and insulting the speakers of the languages across Canada. It's just rushing through.
The “Commissioner means the Indigenous Commissioner”, the wording here.... We've heard from witnesses. Witnesses provided solutions, suggestions. They invested their time, energy and who they are, their identity, into it. Yet, we aren't taking that into consideration here, and the government, again, is just emphasizing words to their liking. Indigenous people who speak their languages want more than what the Liberals are providing.
My question is, how come we aren't taking our time to review what the witnesses brought forward with their suggestions?
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Does anyone have any other discussion about NDP-1?
Mr. Anandasangaree.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, with respect to this, it would essentially amend the bill to limit the commissioner of indigenous languages to be an indigenous person, and I think in principle it is appropriate and important to have an indigenous person in that role.
Legislatively, however, I do believe it's likely a violation of the charter, given that we can't limit the individual to be of a particular background, and this is part of the enumerated grounds under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fear is that it will be a violation and therefore this particular amendment.... I think it's important to record that, with the committee that will likely advise the minister, as well as with the demand that's there, it would ensure that the person does have a full understanding and ideally is an indigenous person. I think that should suffice. I don't think we can necessarily put that in legislation.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Consistent with the comments just made, it's my understanding as well that there may well be a charter challenge should we do this.
We have a proposal later on in this legislation to look at an advisory committee that would be primarily indigenous people, who would make the recommendations. I think that we can achieve the principle and goal, because I think we all believe the commissioner should be an indigenous person. It's just the process of getting there that I'm concerned about. I would hate to see a charter challenge and this being sidelined, but if we do have an advisory committee that frames that in a reasoned way, I think that's the best way of achieving this.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I want to point out that a vote on NDP-1 also applies to NDP-10 and NDP-11, as they have the same content of adding the word “Indigenous” before “Commissioner of Indigenous”, just so everyone is aware of that.
Mr. Saganash.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
First, I want to start by saying that I still recall the day the Prime Minister made his speech about this. That was more than two and a half years ago. It's been almost three years since he announced this legislation, and it comes at this moment in time, just before the election. We're rushing because of the government's waste of time.
Second, I want to respond to what Gary just said. I know it's important for indigenous people to get confirmation that this should be an indigenous commissioner. I understand the point raised by the charter; however, I think there are ways under our Constitution that allow us to do that in a free and democratic society, so perhaps that may be an avenue, or we can clarify this clause by mentioning that the person holding the commissioner position should be an indigenous-speaking person. That may be a way out of this discussion as well.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam, just for the record, and for the purpose of interpretation of this particular component of the legislation, I think the intention of the government is for this individual, the commissioner, to be an indigenous person. I think there is no doubt about that.
If we look at the way it's framed, with an advisory committee, as well as, no doubt, the expectation that the indigenous languages legislation creates, I think it will be virtually impossible to have a non-indigenous person in this role. However, to put it in legislation, I think, would be problematic in that it can be open to challenge, particularly from applicants or individuals who may be seeking that position and who are non-indigenous.
I think that, in an abundance of caution, it's important to address it now but to make the intention clear, for the purpose of interpretation, that this role is meant to be for an indigenous individual.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I'm holding myself back because the way you explained it is offensive. It is degrading and colonialistic. It does not support first nations, Métis and Inuit people across Canada. I'm sorry, but with all due respect, the government is showing that it is continuing with the practices of colonialism through the way you just explained it.
You're asking me, a full-blooded Dene, who speaks Dene, to be open to someone who is a non-indigenous speaker. That is colonialistic. That is offensive. With all due respect, this is a very sensitive issue to me, to my family, to my cultural group, to Saskatchewan and to all of Canada.
The government sits here and explains it offensively. That is hurtful. That is disrespectful. That is unacceptable. First nations, Métis and Inuit people across Canada are going to read about what was just said, and it will be all across Canada, and I won't encourage the indigenous speakers, those who work really hard every day to teach the languages, to sit back and be open to the commissioner being a non-indigenous person—that is essentially what I'm hearing—and leading us.
Idle no more—indigenous people across Canada have been telling us that has to change. Sunny ways.... The government proposed that we do this differently, and now you're telling us that there is no other way than to continue with colonialism.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
What stands out for me here is the cavalier attitude of the current government and its committee representatives regarding this very specific and very sensitive bill. It's the same carelessness I saw when Mélanie Joly, the previous minister of Canadian Heritage, said they would review the broadcasting system. She opened all the doors wide and all the bugs came in, and now we're stuck with a system where our broadcasters and our newspapers—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Forgive me, but my comments are on topic. I'll get back to it quickly. From one mistake to another, the Liberal government, despite all the nice, striking window-dressing, is sherking its responsibilities. If that is of interest to you, of course, it applies here.
As my two colleagues said so well, this bill is vital. In addition, you have the audacity to say that it is closely related to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. You know that this is sensitive, but that did not prevent you from dragging your feet for three years. The Prime Minister said that this was extremely important to him. However, three years later, everyone is still sitting around. Of course, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us that this was a proper, exhaustive consultation process and that is why it is so long. Listen, either you are responsible or you are not.
And now we are seized with this bill, and people say that in principle, everyone was consulted. But in practice, several witnesses told us that they had not been consulted. We are presented with an improvised bill that seems to have been quickly drafted on the corner of a table. I don't want to disrespect our public servants, but clearly, there are a lot of problems.
I want you to know that I am very upset. You know how committed I am to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage—it's a little play on words. I have been committed to this committee for several years, on very important topics. I am told that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs cannot deal with this matter, and that it was referred to this committee. Finally, we have had a lot of discussions here, and in this offhand fashion, you introduce about 20 amendments at the last second. It's irresponsible and pathetic. I find this insulting, and imagine what all of the first nations people must feel, and the Innu, the Métis. It's really shameful.
The truth is that we are here because your government did nothing for too long. Now it realizes that the election is near and that it must absolutely do something. It rushed off to the ITK and went to cry in the Far North in order to have something to show. Apparently, it didn't work.
This is really shameful, and I am not happy about it. I find that we are wasting our time. The only reasonable thing you can do is agree to adjourn this meeting to give us the time to examine the amendments you have proposed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Mr. Nantel, we already voted on the amendment.
I'm bringing it back to NDP-1, on clause 2, noting that it applies to NDP-10 and NDP-11.
(Amendment negatived)
This brings us to PV-1.
I am happy to see you here with us, Ms. May. I saw that you had to speak to Bill S-203.
4:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, congratulations. I have not spoken to this committee with you as chair, so I hope it won't offend you that, before I begin to put this amendment forward, I have to state on the record the various reasons that I so regret that every committee was asked to pass the identical motion that requires me to show up at committees at clause-by-clause.
It is true that, in fact, at this very moment, I should be at the fisheries and oceans committee, where the bill I am sponsoring, Bill S-203, is being presented and witnesses are being heard. I can't be in two places at once, so I presented what I could and ran here, because I believe this bill is very important, but so is the bill before the fisheries committee now on ensuring that whales and dolphins aren't kept in captivity.
If it weren't for the motion passed by this committee, I could have brought forward the amendments I have before you now at the report stage. The effect of the motion that was originally put forward by Harper's PMO, and then repeated by this Prime Minister's PMO, is that I have to be in two places at one time. I'm sure it's taking years off my life, and I don't mean that rhetorically; I mean it literally.
Despite the fact that I don't welcome this opportunity, I do appreciate that the individuals around this table aren't responsible for what's happened to me.
With good will, I will put forward my amendment, which is to speak to the issue of how we define “indigenous governing body”. This, of course, is found in the definitions section at clause 2. The current definition, as in the legislation at first reading, would exclude governing bodies that fall outside the Indian Act and the colonial system that was established for how indigenous nations govern themselves.
This, of course, was brought to the committee by Jennifer Wickham, the executive director of the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society. We do know from the Delgamuukw case, for example, that Witsuwit'en land is unceded and that they have been extraordinarily courageous—as all indigenous peoples have—in hanging onto culture, tradition and language in the face of oppression and colonialism. In the case of Witsuwit'en, for example, there is a still unbroken lineage of hereditary chiefs, and the hereditary chiefs and the traditional hereditary government on unceded land are not included under the Indian Act, so hereditary chiefs and governance such as that on Witsuwit'en territory would be excluded from being able negotiate to get access to funding and so on.
I'm hoping that this amendment will meet with your approval. It merely extends the definition of “indigenous governing body”, as found at clause 2, with the words “including a traditional hereditary government of unceded lands that is not provided for under the Indian Act”, etc.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Thank you.
Before we continue to any comments, I want to note that, if this amendment is adopted, CPC-1 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.
I saw Mr. Anandasangaree and then Monsieur Nantel.