Evidence of meeting #16 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
This will come as no surprise. I am going to move a subamendment.
As I said earlier, I would delete the words “title rights and the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms,” which I would replace with “and.” This also has the advantage of correcting a translation error, since “découlant du titre” does not apply in French.
Legislative Clerk
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Normandin, would it be possible to read the oath in its entirety with your subamendment, since we do not have it in writing?
I think it would be clearer.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
With pleasure. It reads:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, respect the inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to register the same concerns I had with the previous amendment.
Again, thank you, Ms. Kwan, for bringing this forward, but we will be voting against both the subamendment and the amendment.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Just speaking very quickly to the subamendment for the same reasons I stated earlier, to the points around inherent and title rights that Mr. Powlowski and Mr. Anandasangaree raised, I think the issue is, of course, that indigenous peoples, first nations peoples, have always had to take their matters to court to get clarity. Even then, as we saw on the situation with the dispute around the fishing rights, it's a prolonged process. That does not have clear indication of action from the government.
If we're going to educate newcomers about indigenous history and the rights of first nations, I do think explicitly saying that they do have inherent rights and titles is essential.
That's why the language as I propose it is being put forward.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for you, Ms. Normandin.
Do you want to amend only the oath or do you want to amend the affirmation as well?
If you want to amend the affirmation, you would have to propose a subamendment. Otherwise it won't work.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Yes, I can move a subamendment. In the same way, it would apply automatically.
I think the body of the text is exactly the same. I understand that the debate on both will present the same arguments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
I need some help on how we will proceed with subamendments. We have added a subamendment, and I believe we have to deal with the first one.
Mr. Clerk, can you advise?
Legislative Clerk
Mr. Chair, since the two subamendments have to work together and one cannot live without the other, the vote on the first one would apply to the other.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
At this point then, we will take the vote on the first subamendment.
All in favour of the subamendment?
Go ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
That's fine. That's your entitlement.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
We have dealt with the matter of both subamendments, and we can now move to the amendment.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the amendment by my colleague Ms. Kwan, I clearly agree with the principle of adding inherent rights. We did so in our own amendment.
However, for the reason I mentioned earlier, namely the recognition of the Constitution, I will have to vote against it, unfortunately.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Anandasangaree mentioned the consultation process, as did Ms. McLeod. I requested from the officials, through the committee, the list of stakeholders with whom they consulted. I also asked for a list of the groups that led to the difference in the suggested language in the TRC 94 calls for action versus the language proposed under Bill C-8.
Of course, the information provided to all committee members came eventually—yesterday—and provided only the list of stakeholder groups. As you can see from that list, after five years of consultation it is a very small list. I was quite taken aback, truth be told, with the level of consultation that the government might have embarked on with this important bill.
On the question that was asked about the groups that led to the differences in the language, there was no answer with respect to that. Then we heard from the committee where the committee took it upon themselves to invite a variety of people to the table. NWAC, for example, indicated that they were never consulted by the government on this. I asked NWAC specifically whether or not they would support language in terms of the amendment, as I indicted earlier, and they said yes. The witnesses all indicated the importance of recognizing inherent rights and title.
That is why I think this amendment is important, in reduced language, as proposed by the AFN. It's simply to acknowledge that inherent rights and titles actually existed with indigenous peoples.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Bratina
Thanks, Ms. Kwan. I appreciate your intervention.
I think there has been a consultation process. We are at the point today where the first nations are eager, I think, to get a response from this committee and have the bill move on through its normal process. I will ask that we now vote on your amendment.
If you would like a recorded vote, we can do that.