Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Ms. Redfern.

We are at the end here, but I'm told that Senator McCallum raised her hand when the question was asked by Ms. Idlout, so I would like to offer her the opportunity to comment.

[Senator Mary Jane McCallum]

Thank you.

When I look at the amendment, I ask, “What will it contribute to the bill?” That's the question I ask, because this came up in the Senate. There was one senator who told me that it's not practised by everyone in Canada. I said, “Do you know what the focus of the bill is? It's violence against children.” It just happened that it was a ribbon skirt that was weaponized. There is no symbol, except maybe the drum, that is universal across Canada.

What I recommended to her was that she append it as an observation instead of as an amendment, because Isabella, her family and the chief would like this bill passed. Appending it would bring out this issue.

When I look at my family, I see that not all my of family wear the ribbon skirt. I do, but not all indigenous—first nations, Métis, Inuit—wear the ribbon skirt. I recognize that. However, they do support it and they have supported it across Canada.

I'm concerned that because it's not going to accomplish anything, it will deter the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Kulak, can you hear us right now?

[Christopher Kulak]

I can. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Yes, we can.

There was some commentary with respect to a proposed amendment. I don't know if you caught any of that, but in fairness, do you have a comment?

[Christopher Kulak]

Yes. I believe at this point in all of the effort that's gone into getting here.

The bill was cancelled when the last election was called, and we had to reintroduce it in the Senate. I think the spirit and intent of the bill are as stated. They are to represent and signify all important pieces of regalia and all important pieces of tradition. It happened to be the ribbon skirt that is the symbol of those things where we live, which is not to exclude anyone else.

I agree with Chief George Cote and Senator McCallum on what the purpose of the amendment is. I think the spirit of the bill speaks to all first nations people to not exclude anyone. We've always spoken about this issue in that context. It is to be representative of all first nations and whatever piece of regalia or apparel may be representative of their nation. That should be the idea behind the national ribbon skirt day: Please wear what makes you feel proud and indigenous.

It's not to take away from anyone else's particular items of significance, but I don't see the purpose or the necessity to amend the bill at this point.

That's my feeling on it. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Kulak.

With that, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Senator Mary Jane McCallum for her testimony this morning, as well as Chief George Cote for his testimony.

I would also like to thank Marie‑Josée Wapistan.

Finally, thank you to Madeleine Redfern.

Let me also say thank you to Mr. Chris Kulak. I think I speak on behalf of all of the committee members when I say you are fortunate to have a young daughter who is both courageous and wise. We very much appreciate your speaking on her behalf and telling us about what she went through.

With that, we will suspend—

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Before we end the ribbon skirt day conversation, in an effort of reconciliation, is there a way that both parties could sit down and we could somehow iron this out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We'll get to that very shortly, because we're going to do clause-by-clause consideration.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

With that, we will suspend.

Thank you again to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

We are back in session for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-219.

I have here a page of reminders about how we do clause-by-clause study, but given that we have recently gone through Bill C-29, is it okay if I dispense with that? Does everybody sufficiently remember how it's done? I have a feeling that is the case. Therefore, we will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

As you know, pursuant to standing order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title and the preamble, is postponed.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall the short title carry?

This is clause 1, the short title. I don't see any objections. Therefore clause 1 is carried.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

For the preamble, we have a proposed NDP amendment. I will turn to Ms. Idlout and invite her to move her amendment and describe it as she wishes.

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

Mr. Chair, before we get to that, there has been some talk amongst the parties. We want to make sure that people feel comfortable with this. We do understand that while the ribbon skirt is important to many indigenous communities, it is not to all. To reflect that, we are suggesting a small grammatical amendment, which we feel is small enough in grammar to not be something substantive that changes the entire bill.

I'd ask that the legislative clerk read that out. I think it would satisfy everyone at the committee and we could have unanimous consent. This would be to replace the amendment offered by the NDP so that we could make sure that this is a speedy transition with the January 4 deadline coming just around the corner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

I'll turn to the legislative clerk.

Do you have the amendment, Clerk?

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé, Legislative Clerk]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would point out, however, that this would unfortunately not constitute a strictly grammatical modification to the bill. It would be a substantive amendment.

From my understanding of discussions that took place earlier, in the second paragraph of the preamble, it would read in the English version, “Whereas, in many indigenous communities, the ribbon skirt is a centuries old spiritual symbol of womanhood...”. The rest of the second paragraph would proceed as it reads.

I would also propose wording in French, if I may.

Once again, in French, the second paragraph of the preamble would begin “que, dans plusieurs communautés autochtones, depuis des siècles, la jupe à rubans est un sym-”.

The rest of the paragraph would stay the same, as currently worded in Bill S‑219.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Sauvé.

If, based on your discussions, this is something that you would like to bring forward, I want to first ask Ms. Idlout if she is ready to drop her current amendment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Yes, I am willing to withdraw the amendment I had submitted earlier and have that replaced with “whereas, in many indigenous communities”.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

That's very good. Thank you.

I'm just going to suspend for a minute to talk with the legislative clerk.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, all I would say from our perspective on this side is that we support the unanimous consent change as requested by Mr. Battiste and Ms. Idlout.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

There are just a number of factors here. On the proposed amendment, I owe it to you to read out the following, because it is a substantive amendment. You can then react to that.

There are two things I want to say.

First of all, whether it was the original NDP-1 or the proposed change, the amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements in the preamble. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the following is stated on page 774:

In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble

—you'll recall this from Bill C-29—

—is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.

Based on that, in the opinion of the chair—I'm doing what conventional chairs will do—the proposed amendment is substantive and has not been rendered necessary by amendments to the bill itself. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible. That would apply to the proposed change as well.

You can react now, but first let me finish one other point that I would like to make.

Just so you know, if we make an amendment, it will of course have to go through the House of Commons to report stage and then to third reading, and then it goes to the Senate. It will have to go back to the Senate, because it's an amendment. Even though it originally came from the Senate, it has to go back to the Senate. An amendment has been made to it. Just be cognizant of the fact that January 4 is not very far away.

With that, the floor is open.

Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as a point of clarification, you said if it's to “clarify” the meaning or intent. This particular change is done with that exact intent. It's to clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You have to understand that clarification is in the context of the original bill. You can clarify all sorts of things by adding all sorts of things into bills.

I'll turn to the legislative clerk on that.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

My understanding of what is in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, although I don't really have any specific examples at this stage, is that when it comes to “clarify”, that is when there's something that causes particular confusion or when there's no uniformity between the French and English versions.

My advice to the committee is that this proposed amendment would not fit that particular description. It would constitute a substantive amendment and it would require approval by the Senate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

The key word here is “confusion”.

I don't think that applies here, and that's why I've ruled it as inadmissible.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Chair, can you just repeat the clarification with regard to when you can change the preamble?