Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 22nd, 2021

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

At line 9 there would be a little striking and a little adding. Where it says, “Whereas the Government of Canada welcomes opportunities to work cooperatively with”, I would take out the next word, which is “those”, and the wording would read as follows:

Whereas the Government of Canada welcomes opportunities to work cooperatively with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, Indigenous peoples and other sectors of society towards achieving the objectives of the Declaration;

The amendment is intended to clarify the status of the declaration in Canadian domestic law and align with the government's stated intention that UNDRIP is to be used as an interpretive tool in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

We'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Mr. Schmale, where are we now?

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

We're at line 16, Mr. Chair.

I would like to remove “Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law;” and replace it with “Whereas the Declaration is an international human rights instrument that is available as a resource to assist with the interpretation of the domestic federal laws of Canada;”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Is that in line 16?

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

Correct.

[Jacques Maziade]

It's line 14.

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

Oh, sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I have astigmatism, so I wasn't sure if I was reading the right line.

We'll have a recorded vote on this amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Is there anything further, Mr. Schmale?

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

There was just one more—

[The Clerk]

I'm sorry, Mr. Schmale; before we go to your last amendment, we have to go to the new LIB amendment from Mr. Anandasangaree on line 19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. Anandasangaree, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

After the paragraph with “Whereas the protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights”, I wish to add “and Canadian courts have stated that such rights are not frozen and are capable of growth and evolution;”.

I believe this reflects the intent of Ms. Gazan's earlier motion with respect to the amendment. We also believe this is a very important clarification that is required to the preamble in order to clarify the purpose.

Therefore, we would like to move forward on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm going to ask the legislative clerk whether it's properly moved in terms of our earlier discussions regarding the preamble.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, there was NDP-1, which talked about frozen rights, but unfortunately the amendment was not adopted. We're facing the same problem here as before, as there's no significant change in the text of the bill. This makes it complicated. That is my advice to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Go ahead, Mr. Anandasangaree.

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

I appreciate the position of the clerk, but to clarify, this addition clarifies the preamble. It gives better direction in the preamble, and based on chapter 16, it is permissible under the rules of the House.

Therefore, I'm going to submit that it is appropriate to move forward with this amendment. Ms. Gazan's amendment was on a different part of the bill, and we appreciate the work that she has put in. We thank her for that, but the clarity that was sought in the preamble is being provided here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Go ahead, Ms. Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you might expect, it's another somewhat specific situation. I voted in favour of Ms. Gazan's amendment, and it was simply a procedural matter. In this instance too, we want to add something to the preamble that does not appear in any of the clauses of the bill.

In this instance, even if the term “federal law” or “Canadian law” were not in the bill, should not my suggested amendment to the preamble have been ruled admissible, in accordance with chapter 16 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which was alluded to by my colleague Mr. Anandasangaree. Indeed, it was clarifying the bill.

The question is for you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We'll carry on with Mr. Vidal.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My sense of this, as someone trying to learn the process and follow through, is that your ruling would have to apply in the matter of consistency. When the content in the bill was defeated and there was no substantial change, my understanding from what you ruled earlier is that we cannot do this. I think we have to be consistent with the application of your earlier rulings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I have Mr. Battiste and then Ms. Gazan.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I think it's consistent with the document. I don't think it's a substantive change and I think we could vote on it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's actually very consistent with Article 1 in the bill, which recognizes treaty rights. If we're talking about the declaration, this specific amendment is actually part of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think it's very consistent with Article 1 of the bill, which also refers to international human rights law, which also recognizes treaties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Members of the committee, in trying to get through this today and doing the work we had done previously, I was advised or directed or informed of how these things work. With all due respect to the comments that have been made, Madame Gill, for instance, was not able to point out the change in the bill that referred to the change in the preamble, whereas I believe that Mr. Battiste did. I may ask for guidance once again from the legislative clerks in this regard.

I'll have Ms. Gazan speak and then I'll have a question for the committee.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Going back to Article 1, it fits very consistently with Article 1 of the bill.

Thank you, Chair.