Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Following the vote on amendment BQ‑32, in hallway discussions, if I can call them that, we were led to believe that this vote could be taken up again after we had made a minor change to this amendment.

There was a bit of a dilemma about including indigenous languages in that. I think that's why the New Democratic Party opposed this amendment. I think that the government representatives also didn't fully understand the importance of the commission translating documents into French.

I don't want to get into a political debate on this, because that would be outside the scope of the committee. That said, we would perhaps like to vote later on amendment BQ‑32, after making an amendment that may result in the committee adopting it unanimously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much for that, Mr. Lemire.

If we want to move ahead with this, we'll have to vote on standing this clause so that we can come back to it at the end.

Before we do that, I see that Ms. Idlout has her hand up.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm just wondering about the rules about how things operate. We already voted on that.

Because we already voted on it, can we not just vote on clause 39? We already had our vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thanks for that, Ms. Idlout.

We have already voted on BQ-32. We haven't voted on clause 39 as amended. In order to go back to BQ-32, we would need to have unanimous consent.

What's being proposed right now is to stand the approval of clause 39 so as to enable a bit more debate to happen, if there might be unanimous consent on going back to look at that. Of course, in order to do that, we would first need to vote on whether or not we want to stand the approval of clause 39 until after we finish the other clauses.

Let's move to a vote on whether we would like to stand clause 39.

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

Can we have a bit more discussion, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Absolutely, we can have that.

Do you want to suspend, then, to do that?

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

No, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

Since we haven't voted on the entire clause, what wording would we consider putting in there, by unanimous consent? I think most of us are in the spirit of the intent of this, as long as.... l can understand that we didn't want to give just French without including the indigenous, but now that indigenous is a part of that, I think that's consistent with what our Constitution says and consistent with what we're doing.

What is it that you would like to have moved that we could take care of now, as opposed to coming back to it later on? I think that once the inclusion of indigenous languages came forward and was agreed upon, that just makes it consistent with our Constitution that we also recognize the documents should be created in French as well.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to make a comment.

There's nothing to indicate that it must respect both official languages. In fact, that's why we moved amendment BQ‑32.

After obtaining the committee's unanimous consent, we could add something to amendment BQ‑32 that requires the organization to provide its services not only in both official languages, but also in any indigenous language it considers necessary. That way, it would be a matter of providing all services in both official languages. This would therefore apply to all of the commission's work, and not just to a special report, as was mentioned in amendment BQ‑33.

If this is added, I think the commission would also be required to address francophone indigenous communities in French. They are the majority in Quebec. As it is currently presented, the commission can address anyone in English only, which systematically excludes the possibility of communicating with indigenous communities that do not understand English or whose first language is not English.

It could set what I would call a dangerous precedent. If you want to see something circulating on social media, you can be sure that any elected separatist in Quebec will be able to make a field day of the vote we just held on amendment BQ‑32. By the way, I don't want us to play politics on the backs of first nations, but this vote is a slap in the face for Quebecers and French Canadians. I'm giving us an opportunity to come back to this, rather than going through the people's courts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I see that Ms. Idlout has her hand up, but I'll wait a second before going to her.

I'll pass the floor to Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Lemire, if we imagine that there was agreement and we could go back in time and vote yes on BQ-32, would that be satisfactory? If the answer to that is yes, then can we not simply propose, using the exact language of BQ-32, that, through unanimous consent, we adopt that language? We can't call it BQ-32 without going back, so we'll just take that exact language and propose it.

I'm happy to do that through a motion, but I think it's probably respectful to allow Mr. Lemire to do that, as it was his. Then, if the committee adopted that by UC, we wouldn't have to go back. We've now amended the clause. Mr. Lemire is content, as are we. There's no need to stand it; we just move forward—unless I'm missing something.

Mr. Lemire, I apologize for explaining in English. Having said that, I think that is what you're looking for, isn't it?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It would indeed be in that spirit. We could refer to the proposal as amendment BQ‑37. The text of the amendment has been emailed to the clerk. As I mentioned, this wording includes the requirement that the organization provide its services in both official languages and in any indigenous language it considers necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I think it's a great suggestion, Mr. Carr.

Next, we'll go to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

There were two languages going on. You were speaking, and I was listening to the interpreter at the same time. I'm so sorry, but what did I just miss?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Perhaps Mr. Carr can go through what he mentioned before.

If I understand correctly, Ms. Idlout, you were hearing what was being said here and also something separate in translation. For my awareness, Ms. Idlout, was that when Mr. Carr was explaining his suggestion, or was it when Mr. Lemire was doing his explanation?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I raised my hand in response to what my friend Sébastien was saying.

I guess I can speak now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Yes, please go ahead.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

There are two things. First of all, we already voted on that amendment, and my understanding is that we can't go back. If we could go back, then I would want to go back to some amendments that we voted on that I wish we had passed. I'm just saying.... Second, nothing in this bill, from my understanding, tells me that either French or English is prevented from being used. There is nothing in the bill currently that prevents either language.

In addition, the Government of Canada and its Crown corporations—I don't know what the language is—are already bilingual institutions. We already have French and English provided for in all these spaces. Knowing that for the first nations water commission, being a creature of this legislation, those resources will be provided for English and French, there is nothing at all preventing either English or French, is there?

What I would like to ask the witnesses, in response to what he was saying.... Could they respond to what he was saying?

[Rebecca Blake]

In terms of what the policy intent is for the water commission, it is that it would be created as a not-for-profit corporation under the Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and it would be completely separate from the Government of Canada. It wouldn't necessarily be under the same policies and procedures as the Government of Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Okay. Are there other not-for-profit corporations that are created by legislation federally?

[Douglas Fairbairn]

There are corporations created by federal statute. This is a little different, in that it's being created under.... The Canada Business Corporations Act is the act that many corporations are incorporated under.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

What about the indigenous languages commission?

[Douglas Fairbairn]

That's not created under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

To your earlier point, this is only possible.... We can go back only if we unanimously agree to do that, because we have dealt with it. It is an extraordinary measure to do that, but I think there is a spirit to try to see how we might be able to find that.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Carr next, and I know Mr. Battiste has something to say.

Actually, before we do that, a similar piece of legislation we dealt with in this committee was on the National Council for Reconciliation. I wonder if that was a non-profit that was created and if it would be analogous here. I'm just going to put that out there before going to Mr. Carr, if our witnesses might be able to speak to that.