Evidence of meeting #10 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
As you will see, I am a conciliatory lawyer, Mr. Bruinooge. I am capable of keeping an open mind.
If I understand you correctly, you would like us to discuss the transitional provision and then the scheduled review and report. The longer the transitional period, the less time the committee will have to do its work. Have I understood you correctly?
If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and if the government agrees, we will agree to discuss the transitional provision immediately, in this case, amendments G-2 or NDP-5.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I will tell you, from a procedural point of view, my understanding of what Mr. Bruinooge has suggested and the process that would be required. Currently we have on the floor amendment NDP-4. What's being suggested is that we take all of the amendments regarding clause 2 and set them aside so that we can first deal with the different amendments that deal with clause 3, which is the transitional period. Once the committee has decided whether to accept the bill as is or to make an amendment to it, then subsequently we would return to discussing clause 2. I think Ms. Wasylycia-Leis makes some good points and Monsieur Lemay makes some good points, but I think it will make the discussion simpler to do it in the order that is being suggested. I think most would agree that the transitional period is a more substantive issue than the reporting issue is.
So in order to do that, I would seek, and I will seek, the unanimous consent of the committee to stand amendment NDP-4 at this point and to proceed with the amendments regarding clause 3, which is transition, and to return to these afterwards to make sure the dates work and line up.
Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee to do that?
(Amendment allowed to stand)
(On clause 3--Indian Act)
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, we are setting aside for the moment NDP-4, L-3 and L-4. Alright? Fine then.
Let's move on now to amendments L-5, G-1, G-2 and NDP-5. Alright then, Mr. Chairman? Fine.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I would like to move that we extend the transition period to within 18 months after the day in which amendment G-2....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I am told that an opportunity needs to be given to the person who proposed the amendment in terms of whether they want to move it or not in the order in which they've been presented to the committee, in the order in which they appear in the bill. So within that package, amendment L-5 would be the next one we would consider if it was moved.
I also want to point out that if we were to deal with amendment L-5, that creates a line conflict with amendments G-1, G-2, and NDP-5, given that they all deal with the same issue in different ways. And if amendment L-5 is adopted, amendments G-1, G-2, and NDP-5 cannot be proceeded with.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Are you asking us then to agree to go to amendment L-5 now and go back to the other ones later?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
We've already agreed to stand the NDP motion. Now there's nothing on the floor, but the next thing that could potentially be moved is amendment L-5, given that it comes next in the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
All right. So amendment L-5 has been moved. Would the mover like to comment on amendment L-5?
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
I think it speaks clearly for itself, Mr. Chair, and I'll be voting in favour of amendment L-5.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Does anyone else have any views on amendment L-5?
Mr. Bruinooge.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I would like to put forward an amendment to L-5 to change 36 months to 18 months. I can't do that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
It's a subamendment. There are no friendly or unfriendly amendments; there are only subamendments.
Again, in terms of context for the discussion, as I said a minute ago, now we're dealing with L-5. If we pass L-5 it would mean that we will not deal with G-1, G-2, or NDP-5. I want to draw committee members' attention to the fact that one of the issues involved in L-5, G-1, and NDP-5 is the number of months, the length of the transitional period. The bill says six months; the amendment we are considering says 36 months, among other things.
Mr. Bruinooge is suggesting that we ought to consider 18 months, which is what G-2 would suggest.
Mr. Lemay, and then Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Right now, Mr. Chairman, our attention is focused on L-5. There are amendments G-1,G-2 and NDP-5 to consider as well.
Mr. Bruinooge does not need to move an amendment. Amendment G-2 proposes an 18-month transitional period. Right now, we're looking at amendment L-5 which we will be putting to a vote. The outcome of the vote will settle the matter. We cannot amend amendments at this stage. They have been tabled and must be voted on. Once we do that, the issue will be resolved.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Someone can propose a subamendment to one of these amendments. If the amendment passes, then we cannot revisit the same portion of the bill with another proposed amendment.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I think you said pretty well what I was going to verify, plus by allowing us to move this motion, that means it's admissible, right?
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I just want to make sure that's clear.
If Mr. Bruinooge is asking to make a subamendment, he has to move the motion, right? So I'm assuming that step has been taken.
So the debate now is just on the subamendment of 18 months. Since we seem to be going all over the place, I just want to make sure that's what we're dealing with.
I have to speak against the 18 months, because we have heard from so many witnesses who feel they need the 36 months to have that transition time long enough for them to make changes within their communities to deal with the changes that are going to be fundamentally more than I think we think they are. These communities have been living with this legislation or the lack of the ability to appeal for anything under the human rights code, and we have to give them the adjustment time.
All the arguments we've heard said they do not have enough resources, they do not have the capacity, that we need to give them the 36 months. We're going to stand firm with the 36 months. We will not be supporting the 18 months amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
We're on the topic of the proposed subamendment, which would be to change 36 months to 18 months.
I have Mr. Albrecht and Mr. Storseth on my list.
Mr. Albrecht.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly am in favour of this amendment to shorten the period to 18 months. We have discussed this.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I'm shortening the period in this motion by supporting your motion.
We've heard from so many witnesses who are calling for this change to be made. By leaving it at 36 months, it's just lengthening the time for which first nations communities will not have the right to mount human rights challenges.
We keep hearing that we don't have adequate time and resources. The Human Rights Commission, in January 2008, in principle number 5, page 17, indicated they're not even recommending 36 months, they're saying 18 months to 30 months. If they feel they can do it in 18 months to 30 months, I think we're silly to be saying we need to give them 36 months.
I strongly support this motion. It's time for action, and 18 months is adequate, even in the eyes of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.