Evidence of meeting #27 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 claim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you, Mr. Lemay.
There is in our package a second proposed amendment, BQ-4. Monsieur Lemay, is it your intention to move that amendment?
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, proposed amendment BQ-4 deals with clause 15. Officials of the department are here with us. I would like to ask them a question before making a final decision on this. You probably have had the opportunity to read this amendment.
Mr. Chair, do I have leave to address them directly?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
With your permission, Mr. Chair, I will ask my question.
If this amendment is carried, how would it impact the bill? Would the bill's scope be extended or reduced?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
As I understand it, at this point it's not a question of whether it's carried or not, it's a question of whether it's proposed and subsequently carried.
Could you shed some light on that, Ms. Duquette or Mr. Winogron?
April 30th, 2008 / 3:45 p.m.
Sylvia Duquette Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'll begin, and Mr. Winogron can continue.
This particular proposal expands the definition of “specific claims” quite significantly. Although it's removing, it's adding one word, “solely”. It makes no difference, because what it does is allow claims that concern aboriginal rights and title to be brought before the tribunal. This is from an impact point of view. I don't know if you wanted to hear the impacts, but from an impact point of view, obviously this opens up the tribunal to considering a whole other complex area in the area of aboriginal law, aboriginal rights, and title. Obviously it will slow down the tribunal's proceedings, and there is a separate policy, the comprehensive claims policy, that deals with claims of aboriginal rights and titles, often resulting in a modern treaty.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Not really?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
No, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I did not understand. We wanted to move this amendment in order to help. However, we will withdraw it if it can be harmful.
3:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I will be harmful.
3:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Because we are dealing with specific claims. If this amendment carries, it will add claims based on aboriginal rights and title and other grounds. It would be harmful.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
All right. It is clear now. Mr. Chair, we will withdraw the amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Okay.
In that case, then, there have been no amendments proposed for clause 15, so shall clause 15 carry?
(Clause 15 agreed to)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
There are no amendments proposed for clauses 16 to 19. Can we consider these as a group?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
(Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 20--Basis and limitations for decision on compensation)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Now we get to the fun stuff.
We have received seven proposed amendments regarding clause 20. They begin on page 6 of your package with amendment L-2.
Ms. Neville, is it your intention to move this?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you.
The next item in our package is amendment NDP-1. Ms. Crowder, is it your intention to move this amendment?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I'm going to proceed with this amendment, Mr. Chair. I would move this amendment.
We heard some concerns from a significant number of witnesses that there wasn't an adequate process for claims in excess of $150 million. This is an attempt to capture that concern.
I believe in working with others. There wasn't another way to incorporate that into the legislation, so this is an effort to recognize the significant concerns that we heard from a variety of witnesses who appeared before the committee.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you.
Bill C-30 establishes that the claim cannot exceed $150 million in order to be submitted to the tribunal. Furthermore, the bill establishes as well that the tribunal cannot attribute a compensation of more than $150 million. However, the amendment seeks to authorize the tribunal to value the total compensation for a specific claim to more than $150 million.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 655:
An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to impose a charge on the public treasury, which offends the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.
Go ahead, Ms. Crowder.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you.
We will set that to the side.
The next item in our package is identified as amendment L-3. Ms. Neville, is it your intention to move this amendment?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I'm just thinking about it.
Mr. Chair, I will withdraw it.