Evidence of meeting #39 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 recording is available from Parliament.
Director, Planning and Partnerships, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
That's correct, yes.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
In fact, I asked if we could define who these people are, because “allochthones” does not equate to “peoples”.
Director, Planning and Partnerships, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
It's difficult to define, because it's really reflective of the clause that's right in front of it, which says “First Nations, Inuit and the Métis”. So it means peoples other than those. It was intended to have representation on the council for other people—new Canadians, Canadians who have been here for generations, inclusive of—
Bloc
Liberal
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I understood that, but I also understood that new Canadians were a people and it was not clear what “peoples” meant. I'm fine with saying that we don't know exactly what it covers. I would imagine that it will be the members of the council who will define what “peoples” means as part of the bill.
That will be all, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Very well, Ms. Gill.
Getting back to clause 12, shall clause 12 carry with the amendments that were approved last time? Of course, that's done, but I mean with the specific unanimous consent that was arrived at today, which we agreed to.
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Very good. Clause 12 carries with those amendments. Thank you.
(On clause 13)
We'll now go to clause 13.
Madame Idlout, are you ready to move amendment NDP-5 and discuss it?
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I just want to thank Madame Gill for asking all those questions. It did help me to understand better what her line of thinking is. I do appreciate the staff who are helping to explain that. I do understand that, just in relation to that, it is important to not specifically define those other peoples, because I think we will end up going into a deep hole. I think it is a good signal to the future board that this board is going to be inclusive of other peoples. I do appreciate that discussion very much.
I will move on to my amendment.
I move that reference number 12027909 be considered. The purpose of this amendment is to add to clause 13 in terms of the knowledge and experience. I will read the provision just so the purpose of the amendment is clear.
(2) To ensure that Indigenous views are heard in relation to the advancement of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, the Council must consult with a variety of persons with relevant knowledge, expertise or experience, including elders, survivors of the discriminatory and assimilationist policies of the Government of Canada and Indigenous law practitioners.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Lori, does the fact that we've included all those groups of people on the council through the amendments to clause 12 last week make it redundant at all to have this as well? I'm thinking we've already done it by adding them into the council, so does that make this redundant?.
I'm not opposed to it. I'm just thinking we've already done it, if that makes sense.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
That's a great question, Gary.
I added this after our witnesses from the interim board because it became evident to me that it's going to be important for the board not in terms of its directorship but so it can hear from these groups through, for example, advisory committees. It's not necessarily with respect to the board membership but so it can hear from these groups of people as advisers.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think we will support this motion, because it gives the ability for the national council on reconciliation to actually set up subcommittees, possibly of survivors, of elders, without actually being prescriptive in a sense of saying that they have to, but that in their deliberations, if they should deem it important to hear from indigenous residential school survivors directly in some communities, this would give them the ability to do that.
That's why we're in support of this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Seeing no further debate, shall NDP-5 carry? I see unanimity.
(Amendment agreed to)
Shall clause 13 as amended carry?
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to)
(On clause 16)
We'll begin with amendment PV-2, which is deemed moved already, as Ms. May will know.
I have an additional notice to everyone: If PV-2 is adopted, CPC-10 and LIB-5 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.
With that in mind, Ms. May, would you like to discuss your amendment before we go to debate?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I need to begin with this for just a moment, and I hope you'll forgive me. This is my first time appearing before the indigenous affairs committee and the nature of my involvement procedurally is unusual, so I want to canvass that quickly for members.
I'm here as a result of a motion that this committee carried under the fiction—and it is a fiction—that committees are masters of their own process. Identical language passes in every committee at the same time every year, following an election, to limit my rights.
My rights under our current Standing Orders would include moving any substantive amendment at report stage before the whole Parliament for everyone to vote on it. Now, that right that I have exists in theory, but every time committees pass the motion that you've passed, my rights are limited, because you've given me the opportunity to show up in each and every committee with 48 hours' notice to produce clause-by-clause amendments. They are deemed moved, as the chair has just indicated, because I have no rights before this committee but for the motion you passed that requires me to be here if I have amendments.
That said, it also means that I can't withdraw my own amendment. I've had conversations with the minister and with others about the 30-day timeline I proposed. I am totally prepared to accept the minister's proposition to me that what he hears—and I believe it—is that 30 days is not going to be feasible for the department in producing and for the government to propose the information for the council from 30 days.
I'm in your hands at this point, Mr. Chair. I cannot remove my own amendment, nor could I move it. This committee can, as you are just looking at it, unanimously remove my amendment or you can vote it down. I have very important amendments subsequent to this one that I do believe should be carried, but I leave it with other members. I can't withdraw my own amendment. If I could, I would.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Ms. May.
From my understanding of what you expressed there, you would be open, from your point of view, given your explanation, that if there is unanimous consent in the committee to withdraw PV-2, that would be acceptable to you.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
It is absolutely acceptable, and if it were unacceptable and I violently objected, I would have no impact on the conversation, but thank you for your graciousness.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
My comment is slightly academic, but I'm trying to be constructive.
Members, is there unanimous consent to withdraw PV-2?
(Amendment withdrawn)
Given that, CPC-10 can be put forward.
Mr. Vidal, do you want to move CPC-10 and discuss it?
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I do, Mr. Chair.
I would move that amendment CPC-10, identified as reference number 12004983, be considered by the committee. My purpose in putting forward this proposed amendment is that it removes from the minister the responsibility for developing a protocol, in clause 16, and puts it solely in the hands of the council. I would make the case that this would be a more independent process, and I believe it truly honours the theory put forward in call to action 53 to create a truly independent process as this council is going to be holding the government to account.
So it removes the minister from that process of setting the protocol for what information would be provided.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Mr. Vidal.
I will just remind everyone that, as I said before, if amendment CPC‑10 is adopted, then amendment LIB‑5 cannot be adopted because it affects the same line.
Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'd really like to hear from the technicians with respect to this framing right here, because I do believe it is important to have the minister involved to work collaboratively with the council on various things.
I can understand Mr. Vidal's wish for independence, and I share that wish to see independence, but where it's beneficial for the minister to be collaboratively working with the council on things is that, while we've had one fund set aside in this budget, it's possible that in subsequent years we might need that collaboration to discuss finances, to discuss further movement.
I think the discussion that takes place between the minister and the council is very beneficial for the future of this council, and I'd like to hear from the technicians whether they could give us a little bit of a sense of what this clause on a protocol was really meant to get at.
Senior Counsel, Department of Justice
Mr. Chair, this particular wording reflects the placing of an obligation on the minister to come to agreement on an information protocol with the council, and it gives him some time to develop such a protocol once the council is set up, thereby recognizing and respecting its independence as opposed to imposing any particular roles in legislation.
The involvement of the minister in this case to come to an agreement and then abide by that agreement is really what is intended with this particular wording, as opposed to having the council develop a unilateral protocol under which it would not have the ability to bind the minister.