Evidence of meeting #71 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Nobody listening to this will understand what section 85 X, Y, or, Z is. I am just making clear that this now allows nations to develop bylaws with regard to intoxicants in place and simply removes the section dealing with the fact that
(3) A copy of every by-law made under this section shall be sent by mail to the Minister by the chief or a member of the council of the band.
So it simply removes the clause dealing with sending it to the minister.
In that case we will support the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The proposed amendment would require first nations to publish bylaws in only one medium as they consider appropriate. This will provide first nations with the ability to choose which method of publication—for example, first nations website, First Nations Gazette, or newspaper—is most suitable for the community. The requirement to publish in all three mediums may place a financial burden on first nations.
The proposed amendment would ensure that publication requirements for first nations bylaws are similar to those for other levels of government and would guarantee unhindered access to first nations bylaws by anyone who may be subject to their application, enforcement, and adjudication. The issues of notification and accessibility to bylaws and their importance have been raised several times by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Guaranteed accessibility is of crucial importance, not only to those who are subject to enforcement and eventual adjudication under the bylaws, but also to first nations' successful prosecution of alleged offenders.
This amendment provides for an explicit level of procedural fairness to those individuals who are subject to the application of the bylaws. As well, continued access to the bylaws while they remain in force is important to law enforcement representatives who may be responsible for enforcing them. It provides access to all individuals who are subject to enforcement and provides legal counsel and adjudications with access to the purposes of prosecuting or defending an alleged bylaw violation and/or deciding whether an individual contravened the provisions of a bylaw. Bylaws apply to any person on a reserve, not just to band members.
The proposed amendment would also clarify the manner in which a bylaw would be enacted under the Indian Act and when it would come into force. It would provide first nations with the discretion to provide an alternate coming into force date, something that is currently not available under sections 81 and 85.1 of the Indian Act.
Finally, the amendment maintains the existing numbering in the Indian Act. Since the new text replaces existing section 86, a new section 86.1 is not needed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
Ms. Crowder, I just want to note that if amendment G-3 is adopted, the questions cannot be put on amendments NDP-2 and NDP-3, as they also amend the same lines.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I understand that Mr. Clarke is attempting to listen to the concerns that have been raised by a number of witnesses. However, this still doesn't deal with the fact that—in my understanding of how this is read—if a first nation does not have an Internet site, that first nation will now be forced to publish in a newspaper because it says, “an Internet site, in the First Nations Gazette or in a newspaper”.
If there's no Internet site, they'll have to resort to the newspapers. That's going to place an undue financial burden on first nations, and because this is a private member's bill, the member is not able to indicate that resources must be supplied to first nations in terms of capacity-building. So based on that, we will not be able to support that amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Not seeing any additional speakers to the amendment, all those in favour of G-3?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 11 agreed to)
(On clause 12)
I recognize that the government has an amendment. They may want to move amendment G-4.
Mr. Clarke.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The proposed amendment to section 103 would allow intoxicants to be seized by a police officer, a peace officer, a superintendent, or a person authorized by the minister when he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the bylaw was contravened or an offence was committed. Without this amendment, explicit legislative authority to seize intoxicants would be missing.
This amendment is required because an amendment proposed to clause 9 would maintain authority for first nations to make bylaws regulating intoxicants. As a result, the power to seize intoxicants must also remain. The amendment also corrects the misspelling of “subsection” in reference to subsection 81(1).
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 13)
The NDP has a proposed amendment.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Currently, this clause says:
Every fine imposed...by the council of a band...belongs to Her Majesty for the benefit of that band.
We're proposing that it be amended to say:
(3) Any monetary amount collected as a result of the imposition of a fine under a by-law made by the council of a band under this Act is the property of the band.
Again, if people are talking about an intention of having first nations have more control, I'm not sure why the money has to flow through the crown in order for the first nations to have direct access to the fines that are levied by them. I recognize that one of our previous witnesses indicated that it may have implications in other sections, but we haven't heard anything specific on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
We're considering NDP-4 right now.
I have a note on NDP-4. If NDP-4 is adopted, the question cannot be put on government amendment G-5, as they both amend the same lines, so I don't know if that addresses maybe the question that was going to be asked.
Ms. Crowder, go ahead.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Can I ask a question of clarification?
I recognize that the government has put forward a similar amendment, and I don't have subsections (1) and (2) that do not apply, so I'm wondering if the government could provide some additional information about those subsections.
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I could maybe clarify a little bit more.
This amendment empowers first nations to collect the fine moneys upon successful prosecution, directly from the courts. As a result, first nations will no longer need to ask the minister to disburse collected fine moneys back to the community. Subsections 104(1) and 104(2) no longer apply.
If adopted, clause 13 amends section 104 of the Indian Act to read as follows....
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair, the problem is that it says “belongs to the band and subsections (1)”. I wonder if that should read, “subsections 104(1) and (2)”.
That's not what my copy of the amendment says. My copy of the amendment says—
Conservative
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
It says subsections 104(1) and (2) no longer apply—
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
It says:
(3) If a fine is imposed under a by-law made by the council of a band under this Act, it belongs to the band and subsections (1) and (2) do not apply.
My question is, should that say subsections 104(1) and 104(2)? No? I'm not a lawyer.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Oh, okay, my apologies. I didn't read it in context.
So given that clarification by the government, I understand that since I've already moved my motion, I would require unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
I'm requesting unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Seeing unanimous consent, that motion is withdrawn.
Recognizing that there is another amendment, and I think it's already been debated...would somebody like to move government amendment G-5?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
That has now been moved. Is there any debate on government amendment G-5?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 14 to 19 inclusive agreed to)
Shall the short title carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll consider the preamble now. We have amendment NDP-5 that seeks to make amendments.
First, do you seek to...?