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.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I have just a quick point. I know the opposition parties are taking great pleasure in rewriting much of this bill, but we could set aside this glee for revision by just sticking with the existing clause, which sets it at five years. The transition period is already three years. An additional two years after that for review makes logical sense to me. We can set aside the mentality to rewrite everything and stick with this current clause. I think it's a good one. We could simply do that. I'll leave that suggestion there.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Except that doesn't address the concern that in fact this bill pertains to first nations communities and not to the federal government, about which are most of the complaints. To suggest that we leave this go for five years, when the federal government needs to be held to account, would be a dereliction of duty on our part.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Perhaps I will intervene here.
I thought I saw another hand over here. It was Mr. Bruinooge again.
Sorry. The observation has been made—if you look at the original bill—that the reporting period is five years, which conveniently happens to be two years more than the transitional period that now stands at 36 months. We have amended it to be 36 months.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis's point is, to paraphrase, (a) that it's too long, and (b) because the federal government is potentially affected by this even during the transitional period, that that is too long.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I don't sense there's unanimous support to set this aside and to move to amendment Lib-6.
I guess I can formally call that. Is there unanimous support to set aside this discussion and to move on and deal with amendment Lib-6, which actually proposes a new clause? No? Okay. So we don't have that.
We're back to dealing with amendment NDP-4. More specifically, we're back to dealing with Ms. Karetak-Lindell's suggestion that we change the wording.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
The other suggestion is that I could withdraw my subamendment if we were to deal with amendment Lib-4 first, which is a lot simpler. But that would be asking the NDP to have our amendment in instead of theirs. That's up for debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'm told we can't amend the same part of the bill twice. So if we were to deal with that, we couldn't go back to amendment NDP-4. I'm told you could withdraw your subamendment if there were unanimous support for you to do that. You could, effectively, move amendment Lib-4 as a subamendment to amendment NDP-4 and insert it in there before it gets passed, as opposed to dealing with it first, which would then mean you would not be able to come back.
Are you asking for unanimous consent to withdraw your subamendment dealing with the listing of who it would affect, or would you like us to get a vote on that?
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Give me a few seconds, because Ms. Neville has just come back.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
One moment, Monsieur Lemay.
If I could have everyone's attention, before I go back, I'd like to attempt to explain where we are, and then I have a list: Monsieur Lemay, Mr. Warkentin, and Mr. Bruinooge.
We're dealing with NDP-4. There seem to be three different components of NDP-4 that we are discussing. The first component is in the first paragraph, which is the period of time. The bill proposes 18 months.
The second component, which is also in the first paragraph, has to do with the listing of which public entities would be involved in this process, comparing the language that's in NDP-4 back with the language that was in the original bill. The original bill actually had a longer list. The NDP-4 has a shorter list. One of the ideas was to reinsert that longer list.
If you look at Liberal-4, it is actually dealing with the period of time that is dealt with in the second paragraph.
Personally I think we're dealing with the right one here. I think if we want to make changes, we should make them within this, as amendments to it, so that when we're done here, NDP-4, either as it currently stands or as amended, actually represents what the committee would like. Then we can vote on that.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I want to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my subamendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Ms. Karetak-Lindell has asked for unanimous consent to withdraw her subamendment.
That is withdrawn.
We're back to talking about NDP-4.
Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Since we have agreed on a three-year, or 36-month, transitional period, I would like to propose a sub-amendment to NDP-4. I propose that the reference to 18 months in the first sentence be replaced by 60 months. That way, there would be no need to re-write the bill in its entirety. That would give the results the NDP were looking for, in terms of the composition of the committee and how the review of the effects of repealing section 67 would be conducted.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Monsieur Lemay is proposing a subamendment, where, in the first paragraph, “18 months” would be replaced with five years, “60 months”.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Could I just solve this problem by seeking unanimous consent to pull NDP-4 right off the table, which would go back to what you have?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' request for unanimous consent to withdraw the whole thing was not granted. We're still on amendment NDP-4. Mr. Lemay has proposed that in the first paragraph “18 months” be replaced with “five years”.
Mr. Bruinooge.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I would ask Mr. Lemay to call the question, as we would support his subamendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I can call the question.
Mr. Lemay has moved that “18 months” be replaced with “five years” in the first paragraph of amendment NDP-4.
All in favour of the subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Amendment NDP-4 has been amended to say “five years” instead of “18 months”, which, I point out, is 24 months after the transitional period ends.
Are there any other comments that need to be made before I call the question on amendment NDP-4?
Seeing none, I call the question on amendment NDP-4 as amended. All in favour?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Amendment NDP-4 is done. Amendments Lib-3 and Lib-4 are out. We have already dealt with a bunch of these.
We have two left in our potential package.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Could I have unanimous consent to withdraw amendment NDP-6?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Amendment NDP-6 is not on the table. If you're not moving it, it's effectively withdrawn.
The last thing in our package would be amendment Lib-6, if a member of the Liberal Party chose to move that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Ms. Neville moves amendment Lib-6. Amendment Lib-6 is on the floor. You can take a minute to read it. We haven't actually talked much about this one, but we expect it would create a new clause 4.
Ms. Neville, would you like to speak to it?
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I would, very briefly, Mr. Chair.
We believe this to be a very important clause. We have had no discussions whatsoever around this committee and no information on the capacity of first nations communities to deal with the implementation of this bill. This clause would address that issue.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Does anyone else want to speak to this before I call the question?
Seeing none, I'd like to call the question on amendment Lib-6.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])