Evidence of meeting #20 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, it appears to me that on something of this significance, it's important that the people who are currently sitting around this table have adequately studied that project. It's true that this has been under consideration by successive governments. At this point there are a number of people around this table who have not had the opportunity to study it in detail.
We have not, as Mr. Bruinooge has pointed out, had our department in to give their recommendations as to the wording changes they've suggested. We haven't even heard that. How can we in good conscience move ahead as a committee and recommend to the House that we pledge our support to something we don't even know in detail what we're pledging to. We haven't heard our departmental officials give us a recommendation. I think that's irresponsible, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
I get back to Mr. Lemay's statement. It is true that this declaration is of a political nature, but it is an important one. I submitted a proposal a little earlier, because we are talking about responsibility that transcends party lines, we are talking about committing the government of Canada through an international declaration and we are talking about presenting it to the House. There are certainly some elements of this that could be the topic of a debate, with convincing arguments. I think that the committee's resolution would carry a lot more weight if it was not presented to Parliament out of the blue, without having been debated in committee. I think that would affect the credibility of the motion, Mr. Chairman.
Again, very humbly, I think that it would be important to debate this motion and hear witnesses, if only for one or two meetings, in order to better understand what is at stake in this declaration, on the one hand. On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that next Thursday it will be the First Nations Socio-Economic Forum. Many representatives of various parties won't be here. It will be important that those representatives be here, or at least we should assess whether it would not be appropriate... That is when we must decide on the recommendations for the evaluation of secondary and post-secondary education. Perhaps we have to look at the calendar and determine when it would be possible to hear various representatives.
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
I would like to finish if you allow me. It think that an institution of this importance must receive witnesses who make clear presentations. Government negotiators have taken a position on this declaration. I think it is important to understand how this position was negotiated with international bodies. You were here before; you know that this is not a partisan issue. What is at stake here and how did Canada come up with the position it did? I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is important to say so before the committee, because this debate, this discussion, has not taken place yet.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Regarding the amendment, the amendment really doesn't alter the motion at all. All it says is that after hearing witnesses we will do exactly what the motion proposed in the first place, which is pledge our support. That's what the amendment says: “...after hearing witnesses, the government immediately pledge its support for the United Nations Declaration...”. There will be no change in the declaration; we're talking about the one that's currently before us. The amendment only says that “after hearing witnesses” we will do exactly what the motion says. That's all the amendment does.
In that regard, I think people can educate themselves around this particular issue. I would say strike the amendment.
Let's vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
On the main motion, I'm calling the question, please.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I have another amendment. It's in relation to replacing the words after “Development” with “study reasons why successive governments, including Liberal governments led by Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, did not support previous versions of the United Nations draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.
I think this is a key point, in the sense that it's been referenced by my honourable colleague Madam Neville, that this is something that's been agreed upon for some 20 years; yet we know that her government of the past, led by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former Prime Minister Paul Martin, didn't concur with the text of the draft declaration. In fact, they had many of the same areas of concern that we as a new government have. Of course, this is in relation to key parts of the draft declaration.
Conservative
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is out of order. Mr. Bruinooge must table a new motion. The amendment completely changes the nature of the motion we have before us and the chair should not accept it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I haven't heard the amendment clearly. I would like to hear the amendment clearly so that I can make a decision on it.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Let's take a look at the text of Madam Neville's motion: “That the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development adopt the resolution that the government immediately pledge their support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; that this be adopted as a report of this committee; that the chair present the report to the House.”
You would then go back to “Development”. At that point, everything after “Development” would be replaced with: “study reasons for which successive governments, including Liberal governments led by former Prime Minister Paul Martin and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, did not support previous versions of the United Nations draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
The substance of the motion is altered by that, so I concur with the challenge by Mr. Lemay.
Conservative
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, I would like to go on record as saying that I asked for a full debate on this. You advised me that there would be sufficient time to debate it. This matter has been put over at a number of meetings. We allowed half an hour of time. We in fact had 20 minutes of time.
This is a time-sensitive motion, and we're clearly seeing the will of the majority of the committee to proceed with this motion, and a series of obstructionist amendments coming from members opposite. What I am asking is for a real opportunity to deal with this motion in a timely manner, because it is important to communities from coast to coast to coast across this country.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, as it is almost 11 o'clock, here's my recommendation. I propose there be no meeting on October 26, given that the First Nations Socio-Economic Forum is taking place in Mashteuiatsh and that therefore, on October 31, we dedicate the first hour from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. to giving direction to our analysts for the drafting of our report and that during the second hour, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., we examine Ms. Neville's motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
What is the pleasure of the committee?
Actually, the clerk and I have discussed this, and there is an opportunity on Tuesday, October 31, as Mr. Lemay has said, to discuss this issue, from 10 to 11 o'clock on October 31.
Is it agreed by the committee?