Evidence of meeting #216 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was division.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
The expression “Enactment of Act” already appears in the bill, but as a heading that is not part of the body of the text. The amendment is therefore intended to introduce it into the text, correct?
9:20 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
Exactly. The expression you see in the current bill is actually only a marginal note. The addition of these same words in the text itself would restore consistency with other pieces of legislation.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Yes, I have sort of heard about those technical details in drafting legislation and what must be considered as a marginal note, even though the words appear in the body of the text.
May 28th, 2019 / 9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I am the vice-chair of the indigenous committee. I know my colleague Mr. Kmiec has spoken to this particular section, but I want to reiterate that this is a significant change, when you take a long-standing government structure and create two new structures.
As he indicated, we specifically asked for witnesses to speak to this particular issue. We also asked the officials if there were any issues or concerns. I refer to Bill S-3, where we asked if there were any issues or concerns.
Once we had witnesses, we soon realized that this particular bill was a mess. I am very concerned that the government has embedded in an omnibus budget bill—something that they promised they would never do—something that is significant and that came to our committee. The Liberal members voted down the ability to have additional stakeholders as witnesses to talk about what was happening. Do you know what? Now we find some problems with the bill, and this is probably one of many problems that are going to be identified because of the sloppy process.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
If my friends wish to review the record of the previous government on indigenous issues, Mr. Chair, I'm glad to do that.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Their new-found interest in indigenous affairs is stunning. I hope it's sincere. Something tells me it's probably not.
With that said, the rationale I offered when I introduced the amendment speaks for itself.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
No one will compete in the symbolism and the selfies of the “Thank you for your donation” Prime Minister. When it came to the hard work of getting things done and working with aboriginal communities to improve their quality of life we'll take no lessons from this new government. This is a government that violated the constitutional obligation and the duty to consult when it vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, a pipeline supported by 80% of indigenous communities along the pathway, who have now lost hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, thousands of jobs for their young people and numerous other opportunities to advance. The Prime Minister of course has now become famous for firing the first-ever female indigenous Attorney General.
I know, Mr. Chair, you're getting uncomfortable here because you don't like to hear these things about your leader but they are realities.
Frankly, if you're going to—
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I didn't know chairs could call points of order. That's a new one.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
No. I'm calling you to order.
I allowed Mr. Fragiskatos to go down a road that is not on this clause.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
You've allowed Liberal members to regurgitate PMO talking points unrelated to the actual substance of the bill for the last three days and the gavel has not slammed once to interrupt them, but the instant I start talking about some very uncomfortable truths related to the Prime Minister's hypocrisy on indigenous files all of a sudden you and other Liberals get very uncomfortable and start to squirm and bang gavels.
The hard reality is that this Prime Minister is focused on selfies and symbolism rather than substance and results. I could read into the record comments from senior first nations leaders about the incredible disappointment they have experienced since this government took office with the manner in which he has attempted to use the indigenous file for his own personal self-aggrandizement and celebrity status at the expense of people who deserve so much better. If the members across the way would like to have that conversation we will continue with it.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
Are we all in, all done, on amendment Liberal-11?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 336)
Now we have Liberal-12
Ms. Bendayan.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal amendment 12 responds to requests by indigenous partners to use language that is aligned with the wording of section 35 of the Constitution Act. Accepting this proposed amendment will demonstrate a willingness to use that language, language that best responds to the interests of our indigenous partners and also reflects what senators have heard in testimony at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I have a question for the officials or the mover of the amendment: have the implications of changing the wording been considered in the bill?
We would move from a “recognition” of rights to an “affirmation” of rights. Can someone explain to me the difference between the recognition and affirmation of rights, as well as the legal implications that this change could have? This change affects the preamble of the proposed legislation. Although limited in scope, the preamble to an act is still important.
9:30 a.m.
Jean-Pierre Morin Departmental Historian, Strategic Policy Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The change is in response to a request from our indigenous partners, who have been asking for a number of years that we now use the word “affirmation”. This word changes the way the government defines indigenous rights. Recognition simply means that the government recognizes rights, while affirmation means that the government affirms what is already there. This change in the meaning and use of the term is intended to better align with the interests of First Nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Okay.
Was the term “recognition” used by mistake during drafting?