Human Resources Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Like your First Nations band governments.

Thank you.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But it's already included in the definition.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It's in the definition, I believe.

Mr. Chair, that is why I thought it would be a lot easier if you were to deal with them in a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Well, hold on one second.

Okay, Ms. Chow, it was just indicated that this is a new definition. That's why we're going through this.

In the first definition, there was no reference to band governments, and I realize that the definition, if we go back to the first one, was “aboriginal peoples' organizations”, and then it goes on to say, “means an organization of First Nations band governments, Inuit or Métis people”.

In the second definition, it is slightly different. It talks about “province, territory, institution, aboriginal peoples' organization or corporate”. If you want to include “First Nations band governments”...you do refer to aboriginal peoples, which includes first nations, Inuit, etc., so there may not be a need to add that.

But once again, you may want to talk to the Liberals to discuss that subamendment.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's stating the very obvious, I know, so I don't think there is any harm in stating the very obvious. Once the definition is done, then I don't think we need to insert it everywhere. It just makes it a lot faster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Well, we'll deal with one thing at a time.

You want that definition left in, then? Okay.

Is there any discussion? Mr. Lake, followed by Ms. Yelich.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I have no idea what she's asking right now, so could you maybe read that back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

On page 2 it will read:

province, territory, institution, First Nations band governments, aboriginal peoples' organization or corporate

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So we're listing separately something that we just passed a motion to list within the definition in the first place? Why would we do that?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

One is payment and one is service.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We just included that phrase in the original definition that we just defined, according to the last subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Well, it is a different definition, and once again, once you guys have decided on this, it may be applicable as we move forward. But this is a separate definition.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Can you explain what the purpose of this new definition would be and why we would have that outside of something—?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I didn't hear what the chair just said. I think the chair is talking to the clerk.

There's the child care transfer payment. The second one is really a program, and then the third piece is the service. So we're just trying to be at a parallel level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just to clarify again, the first and second are different definitions. The point of clarification, Mr. Lake, is that it may be a little redundant to include first nations band governments in the second definition because it is covered, but once again, if that's something that Ms. Chow wants.... Definitions one and two are different, so it needs to be defined again under this case. Regarding the proposal she has for using the same terminology as we move forward, we'll have that discussion once we've dealt with this amendment.

Yes, go ahead.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I still don't understand this.

You're putting definitions in. We define “aboriginal peoples' organization”, and it includes band governments, which is what I believe we included in that definition. So now in this next definition it uses the phrase “aboriginal peoples' organization”, which we just defined in the paragraph before. Would that phrase, “aboriginal peoples' organization” in the second definition not include the definition we just assigned to it?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It does? The clerk said it's fine, that it does?

You're nodding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, the legislative clerk has indicated that it would.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It would cover it; therefore, you do not need it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Correct.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay, thank you. Then I withdraw it.

I just wanted a definitive answer, yes or no. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good, thank you.

Now, is there any discussion on amendment L-2?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

So we're broadening the “peoples”?

I would actually like to ask Mr. Tupper and Ms. Graham, what does this create? In your work negotiating these agreements, where does this put you now? How are you going to negotiate these, with all these definitions? Does this definition get more complicated, or is it better? Is it restricted, is it more complicated? I'm assuming you're going to be negotiating or helping to negotiate these deals. Would you be?

[Shawn Tupper]

The funding that we provide to aboriginal organizations for child care would be under the auspices of contribution agreements. Insofar as contributions agreements are concerned, it would be a cash contribution. If that's what's meant by this definition, then indeed it would affect our programming.