INAN Committee Meeting

    I call the meeting to order.

     Good morning. Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

    As you know, we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

    Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on Thursday, September 29, 2022, and pursuant to the motion adopted that same day by the committee, we are meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause review 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, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

    I would now like to make a few comments for the benefit of all.

    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're not speaking.

    For interpretation services, those participating via Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, of either floor, English or French. Those participating in person, in the room, can select the appropriate channel and use their earpiece.

    As a reminder, 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 use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will do our best to manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

    First of all, I'd like to welcome some witnesses who are with us this morning to help us if we have any technical questions.

    From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have Mr. Andy Garrow, who is the director, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat, planning and partnerships. We also have Kate Ledgerwood, director general, policy and strategic direction, reconciliation secretariat.

    As well, from the Department of Justice, we have Dr. Seetal Sunga, who is a senior counsel.

    I'd also like to point out that we have with us experts on the legislative process associated with clause-by-clause study, Madame Thivierge and Mr. Pagé. Don't hesitate to use the resources that we have available if there are any questions.

    As we begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29, I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed.

    As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

    Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk.

    Members should note that new amendments or subamendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

    We may have to pause briefly if some amendments or subamendments are introduced today.

    The chair will go slowly. This is not a speed trial. We are going to go as slowly as we need to get this right. I will admit that this is my first time going through a bill.

    Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted the amendment. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

    When an amendment is being debated, members may propose subamendments, which must be submitted in writing. The permission of the mover of the amendment is not required. The committee can have only one subamendment before it at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

    Once all the clauses have been put to a vote, the committee will vote on the short title of the bill—in other words, clause 1—the preamble, the long title and the bill as a whole. If amendments are adopted, it will be necessary to order a reprint of the bill as a working copy for House use at report stage. Lastly, the committee shall direct the chair to report the bill to the House. The report will indicate only the amendments that were made and any clauses that were removed.

     Now we will begin the process.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, and of the preamble are postponed until the end.

    I will now call clause 2.

    In some cases no amendments have been proposed. I will ask whether the clause shall carry.

    On the first one, I'm going to ask for a recorded vote just to get us into the rhythm of this process. I won't do that for every clause when there's unanimous consent.

    When we do get to the amendments, if it is you who are proposing the amendment, you will be asked to move it; then, if you wish to explain it, you will have a chance to explain it. Then we go to debate. I hope that's fairly clear.

    Is that clear, Mr. Vidal?

    Can we move the reference number, or do you need us to actually read the whole amendment?

    That's a good question. It's just the reference number.

    That's adequate? Thank you.

    That's adequate. Everybody is expected to have read the amendments that are planned today.

    I'm going to start the process.

    Shall clause 2 carry? I'm going to ask for a recorded division on clause 2.

    (Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

    Shall clause 3 carry?

    Clause 3 carries on division.

    (Clause 3 agreed to)

    We're on clause 4.

    Shall clause 4 carry?

    (Clause 4 agreed to)

    Shall clause 5 carry?

    I see we have unanimous agreement.

    (Clause 5 agreed to)

    (On clause 6)

    On clause 6, Mr. Vidal, you have amendment CPC-1. At this point you are asked to move that amendment. If you wish to discuss it and explain your reasons for it, that's fine. Then we proceed to debate and then we vote.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I do move an amendment. It identifies as reference number 11957596 from the package. The purpose of this amendment is to actually amend the purpose of the council, the statement of purpose, to simply remove the words "efforts for" to change the purpose to be “The purpose of the Council is to advance” reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    Is there debate on this?

    Not seeing any debate, shall CPC-1 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?

    It's agreed to on division.

    (Clause 6 agreed to)

    (On clause 7)

    The Chair: On clause 7, Mr. Vidal, you propose CPC-2.

    Go ahead, Mr. Mcleod.

     Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding your comment. I see that everybody voted in favour, but you said “on division”. I'm not following what that means.

    Okay. I should be clearer and say that it's voted unanimously. It's carried.

    I apologize. That's a good catch.

    Mr. Vidal, you have amendment CPC-2. Would you move that amendment? You can explain it if you wish.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would move the amendment identified as reference number 12004667.

    The purpose of this amendment is very similar to the one prior. It removes the language “efforts for” from the function section of the bill in a number of those places. I can go through each one, but I think everybody has had the opportunity to look at that. I probably do not need to explain any further.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    Is there any debate on this?

    That was my mistake, Mr. Chair: I was instructed to identify that there is a change in the French translation of paragraph 7(e). There's a change in the third-last line from “du” to “au”. I'm not going to try to show my French skills here. There is a change. It just changes the one word in the third-last line of paragraph 7(e).

    Is that where it's written “fassent”? Instead of “du”, it's “au”?

    Yes. If that's acceptable, that change needs to be part of my motion with this reference number. I should have caught that. I'm sorry.

    That's very good.

    Is there debate? Seeing no desire to debate and that everyone is in agreement, CPC-2 is carried.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Now we'll go to NDP-1.

    Ms. Idlout, would you like to move NDP-1 and, if you would like, explain it?

    Yes. Qujannamiik, Chairman.

    I would like to move that reference number 12027471. I'm sorry; I wasn't paying attention to the wording. It reads as follows:

    Thank you. Shall NDP-1 carry? I see agreement.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We'll now go to CPC-3.

    Go ahead, Mr. Vidal.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would move that the amendment identified as reference number 12008743 be considered. I think we heard testimony throughout the hearings from witnesses on the fact that there should be some measurable outcomes. In fact, we talked about the measurable outcomes in call to action number 55.

    This would be an amendment to clause 7. It would add paragraph 7(h), which would ensure that we include some of those measurable actions that are identified in call to action 55, but doesn't limit it to just those measurable outcomes. It opens the door for other measurable outcomes as well, and that would be the purpose of my suggestion here.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    Do any members want to debate this? Shall CPC-3 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: We'll now go to NDP-2.

    Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

     Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have reference number 12043369 amend this.

    Is there a desire to debate this proposed amendment?

    I understand that this is about the promotion and support of indigenous languages as part of the council's functions, I believe. It is? Okay.

     We're in agreement—

    It's to protect indigenous language rights.

    Does the committee wish to debate the amendment?

    Not seeing any debate, shall NDP-2 carry? I see agreement.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We now come to PV-1, which is Ms. May's, who I'm afraid is not here at this point. There is no need to move it on her part. That's pursuant to a routine motion adopted by the committee in December 2021.

     Is there a desire to debate PV-1?

    Go ahead, Mr. Schmale.

    Could we have a recorded vote on this one?

    Thank you.

    Mr. Battiste, do you have a comment?

    We have actually some alternative language that we would like to propose to the committee. It is that Bill C-29, in clause 7, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 4 the following: “The Council must constitute a national reconciliation trust to advance the cause of reconciliation; the Council must develop a multi-year funding plan that ensures adequate funding of the Council national reconciliation trust; the Council must inform the Minister of any initial funding gaps in relation to item 3.”

    That is the amended wording.

     Are we sure? It sounds like the exact same thing.

    A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Jaime Battiste: Are we okay with that?

     Could we have a time out, Mr. Chair?

    Do you want a time out? Of course, if you are proposing it, this constitutes a subamendment, and it would need to be provided in writing.

    It feels like I amended something that's already the same as what's written, so I'm trying to get a quick time out to understand what I changed—

    Do you want a time out? Yes.

    Okay. We will suspend momentarily.

    Let's try that again, Marc. Omit what I just said and we'll go to a vote.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: That was easy.

    Okay, very good.

    Does anyone else wish to comment on PV‑1?

    It doesn't look like it.

    In accordance with two requesters, we will go to a recorded division on PV-1.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Shall clause 7, with amendments CPC-2, NDP-1, CPC-3 and NDP-2, carry?

    (Clause 7 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (On clause 8)

    The Chair: Before we get into clause 8, I have to point out one thing. If CPC-4 is adopted, then G-1 cannot be moved, as they amend the same line.

     I'm going to reference House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which states on page 769:

    I hope that's clear to everyone.

    With that, Mr. Vidal, would you like to move CPC-4 and present it?

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm just making sure that I have all my notes coordinated and I'm on the right page.

    I move that we consider the amendment with the reference number of 12004717. The purpose of this amendment to clause 8 is to change the language to suggest that the directors be “jointly selected” by the minister and the transitional committee rather than “in collaboration with”. The purpose of this suggested amendment would be to truly honour the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 53, which calls on that language of “jointly” selected rather than “in collaboration with”.

    I think this is a little bit stronger language. We heard testimony from a number of witnesses who would support this amendment. I move it accordingly.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    Is there any desire for debate?

    Not seeing any, is CPC-4 carried?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Because CPC-4 was carried, G-1 cannot be presented as an amendment.

    We're moving on to BQ‑1.

    This is just a heads-up that BQ‑1 and BQ‑5 are consequential. If BQ‑1 is adopted, BQ‑5 is automatically adopted, but if BQ‑1 is not adopted, BQ‑5 can still be moved later.

    Also, if BQ‑1 is adopted, CPC‑5 can't be moved because both amendments change the same line in the bill.

    There are a couple of things to remember here. Is it clear to everyone? If BQ-1 is adopted, then CPC-5 cannot be proposed, because it changes the same line. That's the same rule I explained a minute ago.

    Mr. Gary Vidal: Could we have a minute?

    The Chair: Yes. We'll suspend for a minute here.

    Are you ready to move BQ‑1, Mrs. Gill?

    You can speak to it, if you wish, before the committee debates it.

    Actually, Mr. Chair, the purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the clause also takes into account equal representation of women and men, as new subsection 12(2) would mention.

    The purpose of CPC‑5 is to ensure that the clause takes into account section 12 in its entirety. I don't want to limit the scope of my amendment, so I could move a subamendment to my own amendment to include CPC‑5. I would have absolutely no problem doing that, but I'm not sure whether it's allowed, procedurally speaking, Mr. Chair.

    It's been discussed, Mrs. Gill, and if you want the clause to take into account other factors, instead of referring to subsection 12(2), you can refer simply to section 12. When we get to that clause and BQ‑5, other amendments may come up.

    I think it's in keeping with what our amendment is trying to do, so that's what I'm proposing, and we can discuss it when we get to BQ‑5. The door is open.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    From what I gather, you are proposing that BQ‑1 refer to section 12, instead of subsection 12(2).

    Yes, exactly. That reflects CPC‑5. It would actually be the same amendment.

    Very well.

     Is there debate on the latest version of BQ-1?

    Mr. Chair, I think the intent is to ensure that we're moving forward within language that includes men and women and gender inclusion as part of this discussion. I understand you're saying that we can vote on BQ-1, which is now very similar to CPC-5. Is that what we're doing in terms of being able to move that now, vote on that now, and then have the discussion around the subsequent bill afterwards?

    Yes.

    Okay, we're fine with that. Thank you.

    Is there any more debate?

    Just for clarity, I believe what Madame Gill has proposed is exactly what our next amendment would entail. She has actually changed the language to be exactly what our amendment would be. Just for clarity, is that right? That's what I understood. I just wanted to make sure.

     Not seeing any more debate, shall BQ-1, as amended, carry?

    (Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: As you know, Mr. Vidal, just to remind you, CPC-5 is no longer presentable at this point.

    With that, shall clause 8 carry with the following amendments that were approved: CPC-4 and modified BQ-1?

    (Clause 8 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We are now on clause 9.

    Shall clause 9 carry?

    I am not seeing any desire to debate and I see approval.

    (Clause 9 agreed to)

    (On clause 10)

    The Chair: We'll start with NDP-3, but I need to remind everybody on the panel here that if NDP-3 is adopted or defeated, then amendments CPC-6 and LIB-1 cannot be moved, as they are identical.

    With that, Ms. Idlout, would you like to move and present NDP-3?

    Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

    I move that reference number 12027229 be considered. The purpose of this amendment is to add a nomination by the Native Women's Association of Canada to this board.

    Qujannamiik.

    Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

    Is there a desire to debate? I suspect not. Very good.

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: With that, CPC-6 will not be presented, nor will LIB-1.

    We'll now go to CPC-7 and Mr. Vidal.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would move that the amendment identified by reference number 12023193 be considered. The purpose of this amendment is very similar to the last one by Ms. Idlout. In this case, we are suggesting that one member would be elected after having been nominated by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

    The purpose of this amendment would be to ensure that we have urban indigenous people represented at this table consistently and by that group.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal. Is there debate on this?

    Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

    We understand that first nations, Métis and Inuit are recognized within the Constitution. Those are the three groups that we typically have given spots to, and it's consistent with the Constitution Act of Canada. In the age of murdered and missing indigenous women, we feel that adding gender parity and a spot for NWAC is important. However, our government will be opposing a CAP seat for various reasons.

    Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

    Are there further inputs?

    Can we have a recorded vote, Chair?

    Mr. Schmale is calling for a recorded vote. Does anybody else wish to debate CPC-7?

    Not seeing any further—

    Go ahead, Madame Gill.

    I need some clarification, Mr. Chair. Mr. Battiste mentioned gender parity, but I don't understand how that relates to CPC‑7, which refers to the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

    Mr. Battiste, do you want to expand a little bit for Madame Gill?

     I just wanted to make sure that when we're talking about why we've consistently gone with the Assembly of First Nations, MNC, and ITK, there's a reason for that. It's because they have constitutional status and we know their definitions.

    With the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, there is no real definition for whom they represent. We don't know who we're giving a seat to. In terms of the witness testimony that we heard, they said they represented non-status Indians in Canada. That could be just about anyone. Without further definition as to whom they represent, I feel that giving them a seat with the other constitutionally recognized groups is inconsistent.

    I only brought up the gender balance and NWAC to explain why we supported the Native Women's Association of Canada's seat, but not the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, just because there are too many questions as to who they could represent. With that in mind, that's why we're opposing.

    I think that answers Mrs. Gill's question.

    Does anyone else wish to debate the amendment?

    Go ahead, Mr. Schmale.

     Thank you, Chair.

    I just want to point out to the committee, as we consider our voting, that a couple of times during the testimony we heard from the Athabasca Tribal Council in their written brief and CAP in their written brief talk about more inclusive representation. If we look at off-reserve representation, I think this organization is very vocal and very supportive of the needs of those people, and I think it would be a shame if they weren't included.

    Thanks, Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

    Are there other points to be raised?

    With that, I will ask for a recorded vote, please.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, I declare that CPC-7 is carried.

    Shall clause 10 carry? Clause 10, of course, is amended by NDP-3 and CPC-7.

    (Clause 10 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (On clause 11)

    The Chair: That takes us to clause 11, and I will ask Mr. McLeod to present amendment LIB-2.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Chair, I'm moving to amend clause 11 by adding after line 4 on page 5 the following:

    The intention here is to ensure representation from the territories on the council, as some of the national organizations don't have a presence in the north.

    Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

    Is there debate?

    Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

    Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    From our perspective, we would support your amendment. We also believe that representation should come from the three territories, at least in the numbers that you mentioned, so we are supportive of your amendment.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmer.

    Are there others who wish to debate this?

    If not, I will ask—

    I had my hand up, Mr. Chair.

    My apologies.

    The floor is yours, Mrs. Gill.

    I have a question about the north.

    As you know, Nunavik is in northern Quebec. It's not a territory strictly speaking, but the realities are similar whether it's the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, if we're talking about what needs changing. Why would we limit it to the territories? Why wouldn't we include northern ridings like the one that is home to the Inuit of Nunavik?

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Mr. McLeod, do you wish to answer Madame Gill's question?

    Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's the concern. There is the possibility for many of the regions in the north—for example, Labrador and northern Quebec—to be represented by ITK. However, if people from those regions are selected, then that leaves the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon out, and also, for example, MNC has no presence in any of the three territories. AFN has no presence in the Yukon, so we could very well have selection from AFN from the south. We could have selection from ITK from Labrador, and that leaves us without anybody from the territories.

    We're asking for consideration so that we have some representation on this body.

     Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

    Does that answer your question, Mrs. Gill?

    It partially answers my question.

    I understand wanting to include the territories and ensuring that they are represented. You mentioned Labrador as an example, but you could also consider the riding of Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou or my riding. The same is true for all of them: they likely won't be represented on the board. I realize they aren't territories, strictly speaking, but the fact remains that a large part of the population in those ridings is indigenous.

    I can, nevertheless, go along with the amendment to include the territories, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Does anyone else wish to comment on the amendment?

    It doesn't look like it.

    In that case, shall Liberal amendment 2 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: With that, shall clause 11, as amended by LIB-2, carry?

    (Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

    (On clause 12)

    The Chair: There are quite a few things that we're going to be going through in clause 12, and I hope we can all keep it straight as we go through them.

    We will start with amendment CPC-8. Mr. Vidal, do you wish to move it?

    I do, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I move that the amendment identified by reference number 11961192 be considered by the committee.

    My explanation is based on what we did in clause 8 earlier, where we added clause 12 into the reference in clause 8, which is around the first board of directors. What I'm proposing to do with this amendment is to remove the component that says, “Beginning on the fifth anniversary of the day on which the Council is incorporated” to suggest that the makeup that we agree to when we've done with clause 12—I understand there are a number of proposed amendments here—would be effective with the first board of directors, rather than just after five years. We heard that testimony on a number of occasions, so that would be the purpose of this amendment.

    Just to be sure I'm clear in my mind on CPC-8, what you're really doing here is removing the words “to the extent possible”?

    No.

    What I believe I'm doing, if I don't have my wires crossed on this, is removing the words “Beginning on the fifth anniversary of the day on which the Council is incorporated”.

    Does that make sense? Basically, what it would do is say that the makeup of the board of directors as identified in clause 12 would be effective immediately, not in five years. It would be effective with the first board of directors.

    That's understood. Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    For debate, we have Mr. Battiste.

    We are okay to get rid of the wording “Beginning on the fifth anniversary of the day on which the Council is incorporated”. However, we ask that we continue with “to the extent possible”.

    We've given a number of seats out for other people to fill. If one of those people should resign or if there are some kinds of difficulties, we wouldn't want to delay the start of the council to have everyone picked right away. We believe that if we keep “to the extent possible”, we allow the committee to start the valuable work that they need to do without having to worry about any delays from not having full representation from all of the different folks that we've given seats to—if that's agreeable.

    Mr. Vidal, do you want to comment on that?

    Can I take a minute to discuss this with my peers?

    The Chair: Yes.

    I have something to say, Mr. Chair.

    Just a second, Mrs. Gill.

    Go ahead, Mr. Vidal.

    We are amenable to that suggestion. We're okay with leaving that part in, so what process do we need to do to get there?

    I just consulted the legislative clerk, and you will have to propose a subamendment to the CPC-8 amendment. It will have to be received in writing. We'll suspend briefly so that we can make sure everybody sees the right version of it in English and in French.

    Wouldn't it be easier if we just did it?

    No, we want to stay away from friendly amendments because this is the law. We're getting into a very important piece of legislation. I brought that up myself.

    Mr. Jaime Battiste: Mr. Chair, because the wording is already in there and the amendment is—

    The Chair: You're subamending the amendment, which has removed the words. You're saying that you would like them back in.

    Do I have to do this in handwriting?

    The Chair: It has to be in writing.

    Mr. Jaime Battiste: Okay. What form would you like this in?

    Look to the legislative clerks. They will tell you what's acceptable. Somebody will have to translate it too, unless you do it.

    You wanted to say something, Mrs. Gill.

    The floors yours.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I realize there's some sort of hiccup, but I have to point out that the Conservatives' amendment would remove two components of clause 12, the beginning and another part—the part Mr. Battiste wants to keep in. I wanted to mention it because it wasn't clear to me. Even if we see the amended wording, it's important to keep in mind that the amendment seeks to remove two components from the clause.

    Yes, the amendment would make two changes to the same paragraph.

    That's right.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     We will now resume. As I understand it, the subamendment proposed by Monsieur Battiste has been sent to all of the members, and I'll remind everybody that this is reinstating the words “to the extent possible”.

    Is there any desire to debate the subamendment?

    I see none. Shall the subamendment to the amendment CPC-8 carry?

    (Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Does the subamendment have a number?

    Shall amendment CPC-8, as amended by Mr. Battiste's subamendment, carry?

    (Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We'll now go to amendment NDP-4.

    Ms. Idlout, would you like to move amendment NDP-4 and explain it?

    Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

    I move that reference number 12026959 be considered. The purpose of this amendment is to add indigenous elders and survivors of the discriminatory and assimilationist policies of the Government of Canada to the list of representatives.

    Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

    Is there debate?

    Go ahead, Mrs. Gill.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Bloc Québécois is, of course, in favour of this amendment, which would ensure elders and survivors are represented, but I do have a question for Ms. Idlout.

    We heard from witnesses that they weren't all that comfortable with the term “survivors”. I don't have anything else to suggest, but I did want to bring it up.

    I think I know what the member will say, but since I don't want to assume anything, could Ms. Idlout tell us whether the “discriminatory and assimilationist policies” referred to go beyond the residential school system.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Ms. Idlout, would you like to comment on Madame Gill's questions?

    I'm sorry; can she repeat her question?

    Could you please repeat your question, Mrs. Gill?

    Yes. I'm unfortunately always the one having to ask their questions twice.

    First, I just made a comment about the use of the term “survivors”. In the course of meeting with witnesses, we heard that they didn't feel the term represented them. Some are okay with it, but not others. That said, I don't have an alternative in mind. I just wanted to point that out.

    Second, I asked a question about the reference to “discriminatory and assimilationist policies”. In general, the witnesses talked about residential schools, but the term doesn't refer solely to that. I wanted to know which other policies Ms. Idlout was referring to in proposed subsection (a.2) of her amendment.

    The floor is yours, Ms. Idlout.

    Thank you, Madame Gill, for clarifying.

    The important thing for me is that we don't limit survivors only to residential schools. There are other survivors. There are the sixties scoop survivors as well as survivors of other government policies like those relocated from the high Arctic and northern Quebec to Resolute. They are survivors of these policies as well.

     The discriminatory policies substantiate what I'm saying about not limiting survivors to only residential schools. Those other examples of those policies are well known, and I didn't want to limit what those kinds of policies are by saying just that we are talking about government policies to take the Indian out of the child. Those kinds of things continue to impact indigenous peoples in Canada.

    I hope that responds to your question.

    Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

    Did you have anything to add, Mrs. Gill?

    No, that's exactly what I wanted to hear, Mr. Chair.

    Very good.

    Over to you, Mr. Battiste.

     Yes, perhaps for greater clarity.... There have been a lot of assimilationist policies by the Government of Canada towards people other than indigenous people. I think for greater clarity in this bill, maybe “indigenous survivors” could clarify the scope a little more, in that that we're talking about survivors of residential schools and day schools. Those are the major ones that come to mind, but not limiting that.... I think what's meant here is for those indigenous survivors, so are we okay with amending that or are we agreeable to that?

     Hopefully, I don't have to put that in handwriting again, but please let me know, Mr. Chair, if I do.

    Ms. Idlout, do you wish to comment on Mr. Battiste's point?

    I am amenable to amendment, and I agree that adding “indigenous” in front of “survivors” would help to clarify that.

    Go ahead, Mr. Schmale.

    I don't have a question on what Jaime said. I just have a general question for Ms. Idlout. Are we done with that before I—

    No, we're not quite done with that.

    You may move to add the word “indigenous”, but we want to understand before we accept it what.... Let's agree on the French wording as well.

    In French, it would read “survivants autochtones”.

    Are we all agreed on that? I see agreement there.

    Essentially, you are ready to put the word “indigenous” in front of “survivors”.

    Go ahead, Mr. Schmale, on your point.

    My question is for Lori.

    Could I have your thoughts or your comments on potentially adding the word “descendants”, rather than just “survivors”? Could it be “survivors and descendants”?

    I take your point, and I do agree that we should add that. There are direct descendants who do suffer from intergenerational trauma, so I would be agreeable to adding “descendants”.

    That would require a subamendment.

    Mr. Gary Vidal: Does it have to be written? Can't we do it the same as...?

    No. That was simple and straightforward. This has greater implications.

     Are you preparing a subamendment? Okay. We'll therefore suspend.

     Resuming the committee, we have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Vidal that you should have all received.

    Is there any debate on the subamendment from Mr. Vidal to NDP-4?

    It looks like we have agreement.

    (Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Is NDP-4 as amended by the subamendment and with the addition of the word "indigenous" carried?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We now go to G-2, but just before I get into it, I have a comment.

    Amendments G-2, BQ-2, and LIB-3 all seek to add representation of survivors of residential schools to the board of directors. When debating and voting on these amendments, members of the committee should bear that in mind in order to be coherent throughout the bill. We have to be coherent.

    With that, I will ask Mr. Battiste if he wishes to move amendment G-2 and explain it.

    No, Mr. Chair, I wish to withdraw it since it was already covered in the previous amendments.

    Seeing no debate on that, amendment G-2 is withdrawn.

    We'll now go to amendment LIB-2.1.

    Mr. Weiler, would you care to move this amendment?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I gladly move this amendment, reference 12050033.

    This amendment will amend paragraph 12(c) to read:

    Just to give some background of why I believe this is important, indigenous governments are not homogeneous right across the country. I believe it's important to have this in there so that there are considerations to include indigenous governments that will reflect the diversity that we have across the country, whether that's self-governing nations, whether that's historical treaty first nations, whether that's modern treaty or whether there's no treaty at all.

    Because the key part of reconciliation is the process to move ahead on self-determination, I think it's very important that the council have that broad diversity of indigenous government representation on it.

    Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

    Is there a wish to debate this amendment?

    As I am not seeing any, shall amendment LIB-2.1 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    We are moving on to BQ‑2.

    Would you like to move it, Mrs. Gill?

    Actually, Mr. Chair, I won't be moving that amendment since the reference to survivors was already covered by another amendment, which we adopted, NDP‑4, if I'm not mistaken.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Ms. Gill is withdrawing BQ-2, stating that it really has been covered now by the amended NDP-4.

    As I am not seeing any wish to debate or argue that, amendment BQ-2 is withdrawn.

    That brings us to BQ‑3.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The purpose of the amendment is merely to include indigenous people whose second language is French. After checking, we realized that the bill, in its current form, did not give indigenous people whose second language was French the ability to participate on the board in French.

    The amendment refers to indigenous people who speak French as a second language, but come to think of it, French could just as easily be their mother tongue. I think others agree with me on that. Although we want to support the revitalization of indigenous languages, the first language spoken in some communities is French. For that reason, I propose an amendment to my own amendment to also refer to those whose mother tongue is French. Someone else could move it as well.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    How would the new amendment be worded?

    It's quite simple. I would add the words “mother tongue or”. It would read as follows:

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    I'm going to check with the clerks.

    We're going to take a quick break, to make sure we have the right translation in English.

     We'll resume.

    The change that has been made to BQ-3 by the mover of BQ-3 is to add “mother tongue”, or “langue maternelle”.

    Is there any wish to debate that?

    Seeing none, shall BQ-3 with that small amendment carry?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    Now we move on to BQ‑4.

    Go ahead, Mrs. Gill.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As was the case with BQ‑2, NDP amendment 4 has already added what BQ‑4 would have added, so I won't be moving it.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Amendment BQ-4, because it's been covered by NDP-4, is withdrawn.

     We'll now go to CPC-9. Mr. Vidal, it's over to you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I move that the amendment identified by reference number 12004940 be considered by the committee.

    The purpose in adding this proposed amendment to the representatives of the council would very simply be to address the very fundamental cause of many of the issues, that being poverty. In acknowledging that poverty needs to be reduced and that poverty is a root cause of many of the issues, we think it's very important that we include representation on a national council for reconciliation that includes economic reconciliation.

    We heard in the committee testimony—in meetings 33, 34, 35 and 36—from a number of people, including Mr. Calla, Mr. Ross, Ms. Restoule, Mr. Jules, Mr. Bailey, Ms. Mbarki and Mr. Sellars, on how important economic reconciliation is going to be to the future relationship between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples in our country. We think representation on this committee by somebody who brings that voice to the table is imperative.

    That's the reason for moving this addition.

    Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

    Is there a wish to debate this?

    Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

    We will be opposing this amendment.

    Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

    Does anyone else want to debate the amendment?

    The floor is yours, Mr. Schmale.

     Thank you very much, Chair.

    Unfortunately, I'm saddened to learn of the government's position on this amendment. I think, as pointed out by Gary Vidal, we have had numerous witnesses at numerous meetings talk about the need for economic reconciliation, about how it's an important part of the whole process. To leave something like this out when some people who had very strong voices and very good ideas when we were talking about the future in this bill.... Bill C-29 is about the future and how we move forward, so taking out that important piece, ignoring our expert witnesses who were advocating for such a voice on this committee, is disappointing. I hope the government reconsiders. I think not doing so is very short-sighted. Hopefully, this passes. It would be sad if it didn't.

    Thanks.

    Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

    Go ahead, Madame Idlout.

     Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

    I find the reasoning that Gary just mentioned quite different from the actual text of the amendment. If the Conservatives really are concerned about addressing poverty, why wouldn't they suggest organizations addressing poverty specifically?

    When they provided information about witnesses talking about economic reconciliation, I'm pretty sure if we looked back to the transcripts, we would see it was because they were responding to questions on economic reconciliation as questioned by the Conservatives. As of yet, I don't know what “economic reconciliation” means, so it's a strange concept, and I'm struggling to support this amendment as well.

    Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

    Would anybody care to make a comment?

    Go ahead, Mrs. Gill.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to comment on something I heard. A number of witnesses told us that they didn't want reconciliation to be divided into categories for a a variety of reasons. In particular, they didn't want the board to be bogged down with representatives from different sectors. Instead, they recommended creating subcommittees, and I imagine the idea was to make sure there was a quorum.

    I also have a question. Is there an organization recognized by all indigenous communities that could represent their economic interests Canada-wide?

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Mr. Vidal, do you wish to respond to that?

    Absolutely.

    First, as far as the idea of the organizations is concerned, we didn't want to get prescriptive by listing different organizations, but there are many organizations that could be included in this consideration. Many of them, such as the First Nations Financial Management Board or the different organizations that operate under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act would be examples. There would be organizations like NACCA or CCAB. The list would go on and on, and that's why we didn't get prescriptive.

    Many of these organizations are doing very good work, and the work has a sole purpose and mandate of eradicating poverty by including good business practices, by including good procurement practices on behalf of the government. CCAB has been an advocate for procurement targets and many of these things. I guess it's our opinion that economic reconciliation or the concept of reconciliation in the context of addressing poverty is a very big factor in the context of reconciliation overall.

    I would probably leave my comments there. I think that addresses both Ms. Idlout's and Madame Gill's comments, unless they want to come back to me to ask something further.

    Thank you.

    Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    One witness, as an example, was Ellis Ross, who spoke about economic reconciliation and said there was a dark past, but here was the way to a bright future. I think there was a contrast in time to deal with that very negative situation of what's happened to indigenous peoples in Canada, but again, it was to set the stage for a new reality for first nations where there's a prosperous future.

    I think it's very fitting that it would be included. It was mentioned by many of our witnesses in speaking to Bill C-29. I was actually surprised there were that many. Witness after witness brought it up—that it needed to be part of reconciliation, that economic reconciliation needed to be a part of this piece of legislation.

    I think the amendment is quite fitting. Thank you.

     Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

    Does anybody else wish to comment?

    Go ahead, Ms. Atwin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd just like to add that I can certainly see the merit in the arguments that are being made by our Conservative colleagues. I understand why they see this as important, but I'd just like to reiterate that it does kind of compartmentalize reconciliation.

    It's too prescriptive. The council is going to have to be able to do its own work. There are going to be differences of opinion depending on territory as well, so I think we should just leave it as it is and not be too prescriptive, because it's really about them being at arm's length and independent.

    Thank you, Ms. Atwin.

    Are there any other comments?

    I see you have your hand up, Mrs. Gill, but I think it's from earlier.

    Not seeing any further debate, I'm going to ask for a recorded vote on this one. Shall amendment CPC-9 carry?

    (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I declare amendment CPC-9 defeated.

    We'll now go to amendment LIB-3 and Mr. McLeod.

    Mr. Chair, I want to bring the amendment forward to add, after line 16 on page 5, the following:

    It is important that we have people who have gone through the residential school system or their descendants as part of the discussion. A big part of reconciliation includes the residential schools.

    Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

    Is there a wish to debate this?

    Not seeing any, I will go for a vote. Shall amendment LIB-3 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Amendment LIB-3 is carried.

    That brings us to BQ‑5.

    Go ahead, Mrs. Gill.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We just want to make sure the board of directors has equal representation of women and men. That's the purpose of BQ‑5.

    Again, I'm open to changing the amendment given the representation issues we discussed at the beginning of the meeting.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

    Is there a wish to debate this amendment?

    I see that Ms. Atwin has her hand up.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    There has been some discussion specifically just about the wording, and we would like to be sure that it's less about men and women and more about gender inclusiveness, so it's that gender parity piece rather than men and women specifically. We have circulated the wording, I believe, but we can check on that.

    Very good.

    Have we received the wording in writing?

    You have a few options, Mrs. Gill. An upcoming amendment, LIB‑4, uses wording that is slightly different, so you can opt to support LIB‑4, if you wish. If you want to stick with BQ‑5, as it currently stands, Mrs. Atwin has the ability to move a subamendment.

    Mr. Chair, I am in favour of ensuring parity between women and men and referring to gender inclusiveness. Keep in mind that the scientific literature in French distinguishes between a person's biological sex and gender, whereas, in English, the term “gender studies” covers it all.

    Of course, I think both are important. It's fine to have the wording cover both gender and sex, so I encourage Mrs. Atwin to move a subamendment to BQ‑5.

    Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

     Ms. Atwin, you probably caught that. Are you wishing to propose a subamendment to BQ-5?

    Yes. I would like to propose a subamendment.

    I'll need just one minute. I'm just looking for the correct language.

    The subamendment would be as follows: “That the composition of the board of directors must also, to the extent possible, ensure and equitably reflect gender diversity”.

    Thank you very much. We will have to translate that at this end before we resume.

    We are resuming.

    I just need to make a point here.

    Ms. Atwin, what you essentially read verbatim was LIB-4. That was your amendment. It was not quite what Madame Gill was prepared to look at as a subamendment to her amendment.

    That said, the two amendments are receivable. We can vote separately on the two. They would both be, if adopted, in the legislation. I'm just leaving that with you for a second.

    Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

    Mr. Chair, just for clarity, are you saying that if we vote in the affirmative for BQ-5, we can also vote for LIB-4?

    Yes, that's what I'm saying.

    Okay.

    I'm prepared to vote.

    Go ahead, Mr. Vidal.

    I'm sorry. I'm not understanding the process.

    Earlier in the process, we were not allowed to consider amendments that reflected the same line. This is exactly the same line. It's line 16 on page 5 of clause 12. How can we do two amendments now, but we couldn't earlier? What am I missing?

     It's a good point; however, in this particular case, it is not substituting. If you look at BQ‑5, it's not substituting. If we look at LIB‑4 and we also adopt that, that would become subclause 12(3). Subclause 12(2) is as written in BQ‑5, and then you would add an additional subclause 12(3). You're adding, as opposed to just substituting. That's the point.

    If you look at BQ‑5 and (2), if that's adopted, that's as written there, and, if LIB‑4 is also adopted, that (2) becomes a (3).

    Do you understand what I'm saying? There are two subclauses that are both in there if they're both adopted.

    I understand where you're coming from. I have to go back and try to figure out how that relates to what we couldn't do earlier. I get where you're coming from now, so that's fine.

    Okay.

    I'll just remind everybody that we're at four minutes to one, so we're obviously not going to finish everything today. We will stop at one o'clock, wherever we are.

    Now we are back on BQ‑5, as moved by Mrs. Gill.

    Does anyone else wish to comment on the amendment?

    It doesn't look like it.

    Shall BQ‑5 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    We'll now go to LIB‑4. We've already begun to speak about it.

     Ms. Atwin, you are allowed to move this as a separate amendment.

    This is referenced under 12053674. I move 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.”

    Thank you, Ms. Atwin.

    Is there debate on this?

    I have a small technical question. You said earlier that this (2) will now become a (3), so would it be (3) instead of (2) as Ms. Atwin read it?

    Yes, it will be at the reprint, which is at the end of this whole exercise.

    Shall LIB‑4 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry with the following amendments: amendment CPC‑8 with the subamendment from Mr. Baptiste, amendment NDP‑4 with the subamendment by Mr. Vidal, amendment LIB-2.1, amendment BQ‑3, amendment LIB‑3, amendment BQ‑5 and amendment LIB‑4?

    Mr. Jamie Schmale: On division.

    (Clause 12 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: I think that it's a little bit too late for us to start clause 13, so we will resume on Thursday at 3:30.

    This committee is adjourned.