Evidence of meeting #92 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.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'll make a motion to move NDP-4.1.
We've heard concerns about how Métis collectivities are authorized. This section talks about how Métis collectivities are authorized. This amendment would add a dispute resolution mechanism if the authorized collectivity is challenged.
That's why I move this motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Mr. Viersen, I'll go to you.
I have a chair ruling on this, as well, that I can either share before or—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
On the advice of my legislative clerks, I'd like to indicate that Bill C-53 provides for the recognition of certain Métis governments as defined in the bill. Moreover, clause 8 of the bill provides that “the Métis collectivity set out in column 2” of the schedule “holds the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
This amendment seeks to introduce the possibility of a dispute resolution process “If a Métis collectivity or an Indigenous governing body raises an issue in relation to the authority of a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of a dispute resolution process between a Métis collectivity and an indigenous governing body is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.
Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Yes. The floor is yours, Ms. Idlout. Then I'll go to Mr. Viersen.
Oh, I'm sorry. Was that a challenge?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm sorry. I wasn't sure.
There's a challenge to the chair's ruling as far as this being inadmissible goes, so we'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Amendment NDP-4.2 proposes a new clause, clause 8.1. After we close clause 8, we'll move to new clause 8.1.
Shall clause 8, as amended, carry?
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
This doesn't have to take very long, but I have a motion that I put on notice last week around the fact that two churches were burned down in my riding. These are the fourth and fifth church buildings that have burned down in my riding. I have a motion we can pass here quickly:
Given that on December 7, 2023, two churches in Barrhead, Alberta were firebombed according to the RCMP, that the committee report to the House that it condemns these hateful acts of arson and express solidarity with the community in face of this ongoing campaign of hate, and that it further condemns any attack against all places of worship.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you, Mr. Viersen.
The issue with this particular motion is that it does go beyond the scope of what this committee's mandate is, in the opinion of the chair. I know you've attempted in some of your discussion to link it, but my perspective is that the unfortunate burning of the additional two churches is beyond the scope. I am going to rule this motion as inadmissible. Of course, that is open for challenge.
You have the floor.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, this committee is called the Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We are dealing with northern Alberta. I think this is entirely in order. I will definitely be challenging the chair on that.
Liberal
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Yes. Mr. Viersen moved his motion and it met the criteria for being discussed today. I have ruled that it's beyond the scope of this committee's mandate. Therefore, as chair, I'm deeming it inadmissible.
The chair's decision has been challenged, so we're going to vote on whether to sustain or not sustain the chair's decision on this particular motion.
We're into a vote now, so we have to end debate on it. We have the recorded votes now taking place.
December 14th, 2023 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Mr. Chair, I find this very offensive, as an indigenous person, that a burning of a church where nobody has been charged and there are no witnesses would be brought to an indigenous committee. What is the member implying?
I sustain the ruling of the chair.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll now return to Bill C-53 clause-by-clause.
We're moving to a new clause, 8.1, which has resulted in NDP-4.2.
(On clause 8.1)
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I want to know whether this might set a precedent.
This is the committee of northern affairs, and my riding is located in northern Alberta. Does this mean that this is not the committee of northern affairs? What kind of precedent does this now set that you've made this ruling that my motion is out of order? That is a big question.
This committee is the committee for northern affairs as well as indigenous affairs. Things that happen in northern Canada, northern Alberta, are totally within the scope of this committee. We have now set a precedent, essentially, with that ruling you just made that we can't bring northern affairs to this committee.
I think you're going to have to find some more logic around that ruling. You can maybe bring that back at some point in the future.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I would say that this gets into debate. I have made the ruling and it's been sustained.
You're absolutely right that we have a mandate that we're dealing with. In discussion with the clerk, I was advised that this is beyond the scope of the kind of material the committee has dealt with previously, so that is the ruling I made.
We have important legislation before us. I'm not precluding anything in the future. For future motions, I would say it helps to make a very clear connection to the mandate of the committee.
I'm ready to move on to clause 8.1.
I'm calling on whether the NDP wants to move that amendment, 4.2.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
The purpose of this amendment is to make a more specific non-derogation clause that more specifically seeks to protect Métis collectives not named in the act.
We're hoping that the language helps ease some of the concerns that we heard from the Métis Settlements General Council and others.
That is my motion.