Evidence of meeting #12 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Department of Justice
Thank you.
Just to be very clear, my understanding of the question is that assuming that the Indian Act is amended with an amendment to paragraph 6(1)(a) along the lines of what was discussed today, then would the addition of paragraph (c.1) to section 6 make sense. I believe what it would do is to cover the same individuals, to provide dual entitlement to the same individuals. So if that were the situation, I think that is what would be the impact.
Now, in terms of how this should inform the vote on this clause, I think you should consider what would be the form of the bill later on in this process, if that's understandable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
It's understood.
If I may—and I shouldn't—comment, this is indicative of the implications, sometimes, when you create a much larger or broader-sweeping amendment. It has perhaps some implications for other parts that you may not have considered. I say that without prejudice.
We'll go to the question.
Mr. Bagnell.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I just want to summarize what you said. Basically you said that if we keep clause 3 it will create a double entitlement, which you'd try to get rid of. So if we just eliminated clause 3, the people would still be entitled because of the now-amended clause 2.
Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Department of Justice
The amended clause 2 would entitle a very large number of individuals.
Just to clarify my answer.... Thank you; this gives me an opportunity. We are answering questions without the opportunity to consider this very carefully.
I just realized now that the amended clause would expand significantly the entitlement of registration for individuals born before April 17, 1985, whereas the proposed new paragraph 6(1)(c.1) would actually allow entitlement after that date. So the proposed new paragraph 6(1)(c.1) would still cover individuals, I believe, who are not covered by clause 2 as amended.
Conservative
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Once again here we are, talking about unintended consequences. This is really unfair to legal counsel, to the officials we have as witnesses: to be presenting them with a scenario in which they're having to offer an opinion on something on the fly. If we start deleting or keeping proposed sections or clauses based on what we think we know and report that back to the House, I'm concerned that it can be an embarrassment to the committee, to be quite truthful.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Okay.
Is there any other debate on clause 3?
(Clause 3 agreed to)
We now move to amendment BQ-4.
Mr. Lemay, you have the floor.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, I introduced two amendments that deal with a new clause, clause 3.1. We are asking that the government report to Parliament on the progress and implementation of this bill. We chose amendment BQ-4. We are going to ask that it, not BQ-5, be voted on. We will ask for BQ-5 to be withdrawn once BQ-4 is passed.
There is only one difference between amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5. In BQ-4, we are asking that a report be laid before Parliament every two years while, in BQ-5, it is every three years. After studying the matter, we concluded that it was better to ask for a report every two years. This is a request that we received from Quebec Native Women Inc. We reflect it here, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I can report to the committee that the amendment is admissible, so we'll entertain debate on the amendment.
Mr. Duncan.
Conservative
John Duncan Conservative Vancouver Island North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not surprised that the chair has ruled this in order and within the scope of the bill. But the logic I'm having some difficulty with is that Monsieur Lemay put two amendments forward, one for two years and one for three years. Any of the discussions I've had would indicate that the longer the timeframe, the more will have settled out after passage of the bill, because the whole registration process is going to take some time. The concern is that after two years we'll just be really getting going in terms of some of the registration numbers, so that three years would be more meaningful, and I would argue that four or five years might be a better number as well.
If you're agreeable to an amendment to change two years to three, four, or five years, I'd be quite accommodating.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, we chose two years because it seemed clear to us that, two years after the passage of the bill, the report we will get will be very short. That seems quite clear to us. Things have to be put into place.
However, two years after the first report, we expect a much more complete report. That is why we prefer to opt for two years. As with Bill C-21, it seemed important to us that, every two years, Parliament should know what is happening with the implementation of this very important bill. All we are doing is reflecting the request made to us by Quebec Native Women Inc.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Thank you, Mr. Lemay.
First Mr. Russell, followed by Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Russell, you have the floor.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm understanding that we have the two-year period in the proposed additional clause before us. I'm certainly going to speak in favour of it. I was quite surprised that the parliamentary secretary said that registrations would only have just begun and that we would hardly be able to measure them in two years, since the government itself has talked about the urgency of getting this particular bill through. If there's urgency in terms of allowing people to register, there would presumably be lots of activity within the first couple of years related to this bill, and something to report.
I want to speak in favour of this particular additional clause to report after two years.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I want to ask the mover a point of clarification. The way I read the clause, there is just one report, coming either two or three years after the bill. But when he was speaking, it sounded as though it would be every two years or every three years. Can I get clarification?
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
My colleague is perfectly correct. I went a little far, Mr. Chair. It is two years after the coming into effect. So it is just one report. If the House wants another one, it would have be requested at that time. Yes, it is just one report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
I see no other speakers. Are you ready for the question on the amendment?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton
Thank you.
In accordance with Mr. Lemay's request.... He indicated he will not move amendment BQ-5, which makes sense, of course, because it was really just a different term.
Thank you, Mr. Lemay.
We will now proceed to clause 4.
(Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to)
Shall clause 9 carry?
