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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I just want to mention that the wording I had proposed in my amendment was stronger, in this case the expression “equal representation”. Ms. Atwin's amendment talks about equitably reflecting gender diversity. This is, all things considered, rather vague. It is also an ideal.
Personally, I don't object to it, I don't mind it at all. We can amend amendment BQ‑5, as originally intended, or we can leave it as is. I'm equally comfortable with either of those options. I will accept unanimous consent.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
The legislative clerk tells me that the only choice here, given the amendment that has been proposed by Ms. Atwin, is to withdraw amendment BQ‑5.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
That's fine. So let's keep the wording that Ms. Atwin proposed. I have no problem with that.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I repeat that I agree, Mr. Chair, if it will make my colleagues more comfortable.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
That is very gracious of you, Ms. Gill. Thank you.
Is it the unanimous consent of this committee that amendment BQ-5 to clause 12 be removed?
(Amendment withdrawn)
To finish the process, given this change that we made just a minute ago, shall clause 12 with all of the changes—
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Chair, while the debate is still open, I would like to take advantage of the presence of our guests to ask a question regarding paragraph 12(b), where it refers to “peoples”. I would like to know what meaning is given to this word, in this context.
Actually, this is a question I have asked before, but I have not received an answer. It's just a question of information. I don't know if it's possible to get an answer. As I did not receive an answer to my question, I could not decide whether I was going to propose an amendment or not. I had asked for a written answer, but we did not receive it.
I don't know if the people who were involved in drafting the bill could answer my question.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
You are asking this question for information purposes, is that right?
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Yes. As I said, I cannot move an amendment, as I have not received an answer to my question and I do not know the meaning of the word.
Of course, I do not intend to move an amendment.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Unfortunately, Ms. Gill, we cannot go back to articles that have already been amended and adopted, except for the particular case that arose that should have been addressed at the last meeting.
The question I have to ask the committee is, does clause 12, as modified by the amendments, in addition to what we decided today by unanimous consent—
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Actually, Mr. Chair, we discussed it before we got unanimous consent, so it amounts to a double standard, in my opinion. We went back to articles that had already been passed.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
If you are calling clause 12 into question because you are not sure what the word “peoples” means, that is something different from what we have decided today.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
In fact, Mr. Chair, I am being deprived of one of my rights as an MP. They are unable to explain to me what the word “peoples” means in this bill, and I am going to have to pass it not knowing what “peoples” means. In my opinion, it is important to know.
I have decided to be open. I could ask for unanimous consent. To me, the debate on clause 12 was closed. We had even passed clause 12, at the end of the last meeting. We were to start with amendment NDP‑5 at today's meeting. So the committee reopened, without unanimous consent, a conversation about that. Then unanimous consent was sought, and I graciously gave my consent.
Now I want to get a clarification, but no one can tell me what the word “peoples” means in the bill. I would like to know.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Ms. Gill, the clerks tell me that you can ask the question. However, if it leads to an amendment, it will require unanimous consent.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I completely agree, Mr. Chair. I don't want to overstep my bounds, but I want an answer to a semantic question.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
May we ask the witnesses to answer the question regarding the definition of “peoples”?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I can ask them my question.
Paragraph 12(a) refers to “First Nations, Inuit and the Métis”. Paragraph 12(b) refers to “other peoples in Canada”. I had asked some of the witnesses to clarify what was meant by “other peoples in Canada”. I was told that we would be given the answer in writing. However, things move very quickly at the committee, and I have not had the opportunity to receive the answer. I don't know if it will be sent or if it has already been sent.
I would just like clarification on what is meant by “other peoples in Canada”, excluding First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
November 17th, 2022 / 3:50 p.m.
Andy Garrow Director, Planning and Partnerships, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the legislation, following “First Nations, Inuit and the Métis”, which refers to first nations, Inuit and Métis people, there is “other peoples in Canada”, which would mean not first nations, Inuit or Métis. In other words, it's the non-indigenous people. That would be the reference there.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
We are talking about “peoples” here, which has a different meaning from the word “non-indigenous”. It is plural. If they had wanted to talk about allochthones, they would have written “allochthones”, but they have written “peoples”.
Is it possible to define who these people are?