Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Yes, go ahead.

[Jacques Maziade]

On all amendments, maybe having a recorded division will clarify this kind of grey area all the time. Ask for a recorded division on each amendment, and it's going to be clear for everybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

On this amendment, the advice is that we go to a recorded division, so we'll do that.

Mr. Clerk, let us have a recorded division on NDP-2, please.

(Amendment agreed to on division: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Now we move to CPC-1, which is Conservative amendment 11253431.

Who will present that? Is it Mr. Viersen?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Arnold will.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move to amend Bill C-15 in clause 4 by deleting lines 2 to 4 on page 5.

We heard repeatedly from testimony that this piece of the bill does not really do anything. It is merely a notional statement. It doesn't change the way the laws in Canada operate. I recommend that we just strike that from the bill and that this bill be only to provide a framework for the government to implement the declaration.

We heard from Adam Bond, the legal counsel for NWAC, that this was merely window dressing. I would say that it would be better not to have this piece in the bill so that it would not signal in any way that the declaration becomes Canadian law. I think it's important that we strike this from the bill so that we are saying what we mean and meaning what we say when we're legislating in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks, Mr. Viersen.

I take it that it's the wish of the committee that we go on recorded division throughout the rest of our work today.

I will ask the clerk to record this division.

[Jacques Maziade]

If I may, Mr. Chair, when the mover moves an amendment, other members may want to add something or ask a question before we move to the final question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You mean the division?

[Jacques Maziade]

Yes. It's just to make sure that everybody....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm not seeing any hands up....

I see one now.

Go ahead, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, just for the record, this really undermines the purpose of the bill. This is fundamental to the bill. We believe it should stay.

I can comment a lot further on this, but I think I'll keep it at that for brevity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Is there any further discussion?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Go ahead, please.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I would say that we heard repeatedly that this does not change the outcome of the bill substantially. There is no need to have this in the bill, as the declaration is something that is used in Canadian courts already as a framework. Taking this out of the bill will just clarify the fact that the declaration doesn't have any substantial effect on the Canadian law.

We're looking at ensuring that the framework comes in, not necessarily that the declaration is Canadian law. I think I've said that already. I think it's important that we don't signal that this is something new. As we heard from the department, no other UN declaration has this been applied to. The application in Canadian law of a UN declaration is novel in this bill. For clarity around drafting of Canadian law, we should just strike this out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Are there any further comments?

Mr. Clerk, we will have a recorded division.

[Jacques Maziade]

Again, Mr. Chair, I am sorry to intervene. Maybe before going to the vote, you might want to inform the committee of the consequence on the following amendment if CPC-1 is adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

There's quite a bit of subtlety in our agenda today, and I've just been reminded of a further one.

If CPC-1 is adopted, then BQ-2, the following amendment, cannot be moved because of a line conflict.

Let's go back now to the recorded division on CPC-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you. That amendment is defeated.

Now we go to the BQ-2, reference number 11249061.

Go ahead, Ms. Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, it's for the same reasons as those mentioned earlier. For us, “Canadian law” includes the provinces and Quebec. It would encroach on their areas of jurisdiction. Moreover, if this wording were kept, it would not be in agreement with the legislator's intent, which was not what this wording says.

That's why, once again, I am suggesting substituting “federal” for “Canadian”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

Mr. Schmale, you had your hand up.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This was just in regard to a process question. I didn't want you to move on until I had a chance to address this. I don't know if now is the time, because we're now discussing a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Could I conclude this motion and then ask you to bring your matter up?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay. Don't forget. Awesome.

Thank you.