Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, December 10, 2007, the committee will now resume consideration of Bill C-30, an act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We will begin our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

On Monday, I believe all of you received a package of proposed amendments that members had forwarded to the staff last week. As I'm sure you will recall from our last clause-by-clause, the proposed amendments that have been put forward by committee members are not actually deemed moved until someone does that here today. So if someone who has proposed an amendment for whatever reason does not want to proceed with it, it's not a case that we have to take it off the agenda; we just have to not put it on the agenda.

As we move through this process, the staff have assembled these proposed amendments in the sequence of the bill on a clause-by-clause basis. In one case, where two proposed amendments were received that are virtually identical, they're presented in the order in which they were received by the staff. That is the logic. That explains why we don't proceed with them based on who they came from, but rather, sequentially through the document.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), clause 1, which contains the short title and preamble, is postponed. In other words, the moving of the clause that contains the title will be done at the end, in case amendments are made that may cause us to actually want to change the title. In that case, it's actually a standing order that we do the short title at the end.

By practice, often, as clause 2 is an interpretation clause, if I have the unanimous agreement of the committee to reserve that also to the end, we will consider that. There is the potential for an amendment to that, but depending on what decisions we make on other clauses, it may have consequential impacts on that conversation. So that's the logic there.

Moving on to clause 3, clauses 3 to 13 do not have any proposed amendments. Do I have the consent of the committee to treat them as a group?

Monsieur Lemay, do you have a question?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Bloc has a proposed amendment to the preamble of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Yes, I have that.

We are not required to do this, but what I had suggested was that we move the discussion of the preamble to the end of our consideration, because there's the possibility that if we were to make other amendments, we might actually want to make further changes to the preamble. It's not a requirement that we move this to the end, but there is a certain logic.

Oh, it actually is a requirement. Pardon me. It was my understanding there was a requirement that we move clause 1 to the end, but not clause 2.

So we're just setting that aside. We have proposed amendment BQ-1 here. I'm not forgetting about it, but we'll deal with that at the end of the process. Is that understood and agreed?

Moving beyond clauses 1 and 2 to clause 3, as I said, there are no proposed amendments dealing with clauses 3 to 13. Do I have the consent of the committee to treat them as a group? If so, I would ask whether there is any debate on any of these clauses, clauses 3 to 13.

If there is no debate on these clauses, are all in favour of moving them as written?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 14--Grounds of a specific claim)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There were two amendments proposed by committee members dealing with clause 14. In the package, they've been presented as amendments L-1 and BQ-2.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Excuse me, but did you say clauses 2 to 13 or clauses 3 to 13?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Clauses 3 to 13. We set aside clause 2. We will consider that on its own, at the end.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay. Sorry to interrupt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That's fine.

For clause 14, as I said, we did receive two proposed amendments, one from Ms. Neville and one from Monsieur Lemay. They are the same, but Ms. Neville's has been presented first because it was received first.

At this time, Ms. Neville, is it your intention to--

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

It is my intention to move the amendment as I have it here. I move to amend Bill C-30 in clause 14 by replacing line 26 on page 7 with the following:

the Crown's provision or non-provision of reserve lands,

Mr. Chair, we're doing this is response to some concerns that we heard, particularly from AFNQL. We believe this provides greater clarity for the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Would any other members like to comment on this?

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the member's raising of the point. However, with the drafting of the bill, it is felt that these considerations are within the current text. I know that a number of witnesses, including Professor Schwartz, had dealt with this in testimony and suggested that these concerns were addressed in the bill. Of course, the bill was the culmination of a lot of work by the AFN.

I would like to put that on the record and suggest that in fact this amendment isn't necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Well, I'm a little surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary indicate that; I understand there was some agreement prior to this. I believe from the AFN's perspective it is a useful clarifying step, and it was requested by the AFNQL. It's to ensure that there will not be any oversight of their concerns.

So we will proceed with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Perhaps I could offer something here.

In terms of Liberal-1, there was some uncertainty about whether the intention of this amendment was to clarify meaning or whether it was to change the meaning. As a consequence, there was some question about the admissibility of it.

You're saying that the intention is to....

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

To clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

On that basis, I would see that it is admissible if the intention is to clarify.

We've heard Mr. Bruinooge's comments. Does anyone else wish to say something?

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have moved the same proposed amendment at the request of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. We have a saying in French that means it does not hurt to stress the issue. This way, we will not have to get back to it. This is why we support Ms. Neville's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Are there any other comments or questions?

Well, then, let's vote on Liberal-1 as presented.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The next amendment in the package is BQ-2. We won't be dealing with it because it has been dealt with in Liberal-1.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, this may be a translation problem, but does that mean that amendment BQ-2 is withdrawn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you. That's not necessary, but it's okay.

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On Clause 15--Exceptions)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There was an amendment proposed to clause 15, but it's not clear to me whether it's going to be moved at this time.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, after due thought, analysis and consultation, we are withdrawing proposed amendment BQ-3.