Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We acknowledge that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference of Thursday, September 29, 2022, and pursuant to the motion adopted the same day by the committee, we are meeting to continue the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, in accordance with the order adopted by the House on June 23, 2022. Members may participate in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom app.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

As far as interpretation is concerned, those participating in the meeting using Zoom have a choice at the bottom of the screen between the floor, English, or French, while those in the room can use the headset and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please also raise that little hand icon. The clerk and I will do our best to manage the order in which you speak, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

To help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, we welcome once again, from the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Mr. Andy Garrow, director, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat, planning and partnerships; and Ms. Kate Ledgerwood, director general, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat. From the Department of Justice, we have Dr. Seetal Sunga, senior counsel.

There are a number of standard procedures that we follow in clause-by-clause. I read them out last time. Would members like me to read them out again this time, or is it still fresh in your minds?

Very good. In that case, we'll get under way.

We are here to continue the clause-by-clause consideration. The chair now calls clause 13. We have an amendment, NDP-5, proposed by Ms. Idlout.

Ms. Idlout, would you like to move your amendment and describe it? Then we'll see whether we go to debate.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I would. I just need to find it.

(On clause 12)

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

Mr. Chair, in our haste to rush the last minute of clause 12 last week, we saw that amendments BQ-5 and LIB-4 both passed. Does that mean that they are both going to be portrayed in the legislation one after the other, or do we understand that “to ensure gender parity on the board” replaces the discussion about equal representation of men and women?

I think the more inclusive language was “gender parity” without actually saying “men and women”, because of trying to be inclusive of people who don't see themselves reflected in any of those comments. I'm trying to get a sense what we did there moving forward in that last frame of BQ-5 and LIB-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

As I explained at the last meeting, both will appear separately, as subclauses 12(2) and 12(3).

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Mrs. Atwin, please go ahead.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It appears as though having the two is a bit redundant and perhaps not as clear as it should be. I know that's our goal with this legislation. I was wondering if there is a possibility to move a subamendment to BQ-5 so that it's all one [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

To try to answer your point, Mrs. Atwin, when Madame Gill proposed BQ-5, she saw a difference between BQ-5 and LIB-4. That is why we ended up doing two separate amendments.

Before we go any further, I'm going to ask our experts from Crown-Indigenous Relations to express themselves with respect to that.

If we are to go back and make one amendment, BQ-5, that covers everything, it would require unanimous consent of all the members here in this room because it is something that we adopted on Monday. Having said that, as you know, it is still possible at report stage, should there be a decision to do so, to bring forward another amendment.

Before we go any further, I will ask Mr. Garrow or Ms. Ledgerwood to comment on what we're discussing at the moment.

[Dr. Seetal Sunga, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice]

I can answer.

Mr. Chair, ideally the intention of this committee will be very clearly expressed in the legislation, as raised by Mrs. Atwin. If it is the intention of this committee to highlight equitable gender representation, those words could be used in a separate subparagraph—or the wording “equal representation of men, women, and gender-diverse persons”, but I think my first suggestion would be something that I would put forward for you to consider, if that is reflective of the intention of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

What would be the suggestion? I'm sorry; I didn't quite hear it.

[Dr. Seetal Sunga]

The suggestion would be to use “equitable gender representation”, if that reflects your intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Would there be any other comments with respect to what has just been said?

Madame Gill, go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

In fact, in my humble understanding, the two amendments remained distinct as they concerned two different aspects of representativity. I had made the distinction between biological sex and gender. In the scientific literature in English, these two aspects are grouped together under one term, rather than using two separate terms.

I wanted it to say that there should be an ideal representation or zone to be respected for gender parity. I thought Ms. Atwin's amendment was to clarify paragraph (d), where the text already refers to the various gender identities.

I don't know whether Ms. Atwin wanted to talk about proportionality, parity and a third term that would be added here, or whether she wanted to use just the term “gender” and take out completely the terms that were used here that related to biological sex. That's the question I have.

This is perhaps something new. We are used to talking about male-female gender parity. Here there was something else added.

At this point, in order to make the additions consistent, shouldn't the notion of diverse gender identities, which would end up being included in the notion of parity, be removed from paragraph (d) as well, if we were to decide to combine the two wordings, should such a thing be possible? I know that requires the unanimous consent of the committee.

I've touched on several aspects at once. I don't know if I was clear. I can answer Ms. Atwin's questions, if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Do you have anything else to bring forward at the moment?

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

I'm not clear whether we're accepting Ms. Sunga's recommendation and her wording. I heard what Madame Gill said. I'm just not sure if she's on board with making it clearer, as suggested by the team there. Is she suggesting alternative words?

Right now, it's not clear to me whether we're keeping both sections, which speak to the same thing in the bill, or trying to combine them together as suggested by Ms. Sunga.

That's my question. Is Ms. Sunga's wording good with the committee or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

At the moment, the situation is what we determined on Monday afternoon. There would have to be unanimous consent to make any kind of revision.

Go ahead, Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I have one more question.

I would just like to know if we all understand each other. I agree, I would be willing to give my consent for there to be a change, but I would like to make sure that everybody understands what we are talking about.

I have some questions for Ms. Atwin. Does she want to talk about the representativity of gender identities? Is that what she wants to add? Wait, excuse me: I said “representativity”, but I meant parity of gender identities. That's my understanding of her amendment, but I'm not sure.

At this point, would she amend paragraph 12(d) of the bill, where it also talks about gender-diverse persons? It doesn't talk about parity, it talks about the inclusion of gender-diverse persons. I was talking earlier about the need to be consistent.

So what she is proposing would replace the idea of male-female gender parity. I was talking about biological sex. Here, we want to talk about gender identities, not gender parity. There may be a crossroads, but as I understand it, that's what they want to see added.

There are several questions here. I would like some clarification and to know if I have understood correctly what Ms. Atwin wants to do with her amendment. I would also like to know whether she wants, for the sake of consistency, her intention to be reflected also in paragraph 12(d), where it talks about representation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Mrs. Atwin, you heard what Madame Gill had to say. Would you care to respond to her?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The wording that I put forward as far as gender diversity is concerned is meant to include men and women as well. It seems to me that it's accomplishing the same goal but with fewer words, and without an additional section to that subamendment.

I think it would be easier and clearer if we used that language up front, so I would seek unanimous consent to go back and do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Before we put that up to see if there's unanimous consent, could you say specifically what you're seeking unanimous consent for?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The reference number may be different, but it was originally 12053674. It's the LIB-4 wording, but it goes with BQ-5: That Bill C-29, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following:

(2) The composition of the board of directors must also, to the extent possible, ensure and equitably reflect gender diversity.

I believe it's inclusive of men and women, as well as a non-binary version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

If I'm hearing you properly, you're going back to say that LIB-4 should be adopted, because it covers BQ-5. Is that correct?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Yes, but it can also be seen as a subamendment to BQ-5, if that's an easier process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

The legislative clerks have explained that what we would be seeking through unanimous consent is that BQ-5 be removed.

Does anybody wish to comment on that?

Okay. I would like to see—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I would like to speak...

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I had not raised my hand.