Evidence of meeting #134 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Colleagues, we're back.
Mr. Lemire, I believe there's a slight change to your amendment. I will give you the floor so that you can explain it.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all my colleagues and everyone else around the table for their patience.
The text of the amendment would be inserted where we left off. After subclause 39(4), we would create new subclause 39(5). It is an amendment to clause 39 that adds, after line 22 on page 19, the obligation for the organization to offer its services in both official languages and in the indigenous languages it deems necessary. The new subclause 39(5), which concerns languages, would make sure that everyone who participates in this commission is understood in their language.
Thank you, meegwetch.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
Colleagues, this was circulated by email, so you should have that all in your email.
At this point, I'll open it up if there's any further debate on it.
I see Ms. Idlout has her hand up, so I will give her the floor.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I very much want to thank Sébastien and his team for this new amendment.
I just want to share as well that, as an Inuk MP, since I was elected I've very much appreciated the work of former MP Romeo Saganash. It was because of his work that, since I was elected I've been able to, as much as possible, be given the resources to speak Inuktitut in the House of Commons. Today and, particularly, yesterday, it would have been so wonderful to be able to speak Inuktitut, with the group Nunavut Sivuniksavut having been here.
With my Standing Order 31, I had requested to have an interpreter so that I could speak in Inuktitut, but you'll notice that, today and yesterday, I've been forced to speak English and I haven't had the resources to speak Inuktitut, even though we had great work from people like former MP Romeo Saganash to ensure I could do so. That's why I'm very much in support of this new amendment that adds “indigenous languages”.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
With that, not seeing any further debate, let's take this to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 39 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to on division)
(On clause 42)
The next amendment we have is NDP-77.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
NDP-77 was submitted to the committee by File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council. It seeks to amend clause 42, which talks about a five-year review and a report. They see it as requiring improvement.
I move to amend clause 42, in Bill C-61, by replacing line 1 on page 20 with the following:
and cooperation with First Nations,
I would also replace line 3 on page 20 with the following:
to be conducted according to jointly develop criteria, and the Minister must cause a report of
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-77 is moved. Before we vote on it, I want to mention that if NDP-77 is adopted, CPC-14 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
I will open it up for debate.
Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I just want to say that I think CPC-14 is a great amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Not seeing any further debate, let's move to a vote on NDP-77.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 42 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 43 agreed to on division)
(On clause 44)
The next amendment is new G-10. The reference number is 13447880.
With that, I will open it up to Ms. Atwin to speak to G-10.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move to amend Bill C-61, in clause 44, by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 20 with the following:
44 This Act, other than section 27.1, comes into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.
It creates a timeline for implementing the bill. I believe it is in alignment with indigenous witnesses we've heard at committee.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.
Amendment G-10 has been moved. At this point, we'll open it up for debate. The amendment is being circulated so that folks have that as well.
First, we'll go to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Proposed new clause 27.1 was not passed. It was defeated.
Thank you for that, Ms. Idlout. That's a good catch.
G-10 does refer to section 27.1, which did not pass. It still can be moved without that part of it, should that be changed, but I'll first turn it over to Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Would I be able to amend that? Instead of having the reference to section 27.1, it would read as “This Act comes into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Mr. Battiste has proposed a subamendment, which removes the reference to section 27.1, which, of course, did not pass. I'll open that up to debate if anybody would like to weigh in on that.
Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I don't know if I should ask my questions after this subamendment. Are we discussing the subamendment?
Liberal
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Okay. I don't see any further discussion on the subamendment, so shall the subamendment to G-10 carry?
(Subamendment agreed to)
This takes us to G-10 as amended. Is there any debate?
Ms. Idlout, do you want to say something?
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Yes, I want to ask questions about the actual new G-10. From what I remember from testimony from first nations, I can't remember hearing any of them requesting that this not come into force until one year after. Is there an explanation as to why this amendment is being proposed—to wait a year after it has received royal assent—when they've asked for it to begin immediately at royal assent?
First nations have already been waiting decades for a bill such as this.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
There have been some discussions around the protected zones, and some of the discussions around the protected zones that we've parked will require action from the minister within six months to come up with agreements between provinces and first nations on what those protected zones are. A lot of the discussion has been around defining what protection zones are while respecting provincial jurisdiction and respecting the principles of UNDRIP.
What we've stated, which will be coming when we return to the discussion around protected zones, is six months from.... Right now, within the protection zones conversations, there is no time frame for the provinces to commence discussions on agreements on the protection zones. What I've amended is putting a time frame for the minister to say that within six months of the time that this comes into force, she has to commence agreements with provincial and federal governments to ensure that we get to language on protection zones.
I think you have that in your email. That's one of the reasons for within one year. It's because within six months of the thing being in place, we have to come up with a defined protection zone. It gives the minister a little bit of time to commence those discussions.
Liberal
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thanks.
The current language of this clause about coming into force speaks to an order in council.
The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.
It's a tripwire, essentially. It's setting that specified date, rather than having the kind of ambiguity that's in that date being fixed by the OIC.