AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

• 1124

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Before turning to Bill C-6, I would like to thank all committee members for their co-operation and for the contributions they have made to the study of this Bill. It hasn't always been easy but everyone has behaved like a gentleman and in a professional manner. I would like to thank you.

• 1125

We begin today our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6, an Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Our witnesses today are officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Will Dunlop, Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program; Mr. Peter Haley, Acting Chief, Resource Strategies, Northern Affairs Program; Mr. Jacques Denault, Policy Specialist, Northern Affairs Program; Ms. Suzanne Grenier, Legal Counsel; and Ms. Margaret Gray, Specialist, Policy Bureau, Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I would like to welcome you all. We shall begin our clause-by- clause study. I must warn you that we may have to leave to vote around 12:00 or 12:30.

According to the specialist to my left, we deal with the preamble at the end. We start with clause 2.

(Clause 2—Interpretation)

Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): It's on page 3 in our package of amendments, and it would make it clear that this bill only applies to the Gwich'in and the Sahtu.

[Translation]

The Chairman: On page 3 of your document.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: I'd also like to bring up the point that to enable us to do our work on committee, there are only two lawyers who are available to every single committee. So for every member of Parliament who wants to do this kind of work, it's very difficult, because there are only two lawyers. I want to bring it to your attention as the chair, in case you didn't know.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, I am quite aware of that.

Ms. Hardy moves an amendment to page 3 of Bill C-6 relating to clause 2. Is there any debate?

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we have a subamendment to move to clause 2. I would like to move this subamendment concerning the definition of First Nations.

[English]

It's on page 2. I would like to amend clause 2.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would like to apologize for the delay that this will cause but some have received documents that do not have the same numbering as those we have. We are making the necessary rectifications.

• 1130

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): It's under interpretations, page 2, clause 4.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Can we get square on this now?

[Translation]

The Chairman: As we noted at the outset, the preamble will be studied at the end of our consideration. I hope that is clear.

Ms. Hardy tabled her amendments before the government ones. We will start with amendment number 1 on page 3. We will be following the order in which the amendments were tabled. You were the first to table an amendment. Is there any debate on the NDP amendment, amendment number 1 on clause 2, page 3?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Would you please read the amendment?

The Chairman: Certainly. It is moved that Bill C-6, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 23 on page 2 with the following:

tion, *ucand*uf the Sahtu First Nation.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Are we in debate?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, we are in debate.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: My understanding is that all the work we've done with this is dealing with the entire Mackenzie Valley, as far as I'm concerned. To limit it to only those two that have currently signed treaties I think is counter to what we're trying to do in the bill.

I understand that some of the first nations were feeling a little upset that they weren't mentioned in the bill, that there was no provision for them after they had signed their land treaty. I don't think we want to exclude them; I think rather we want to provide for the opportunity for them to be included once they have signed their land claims. This I can't support, but I would support an amendment that gave some recognition to those other....

We heard deputation from a number of people saying they just felt they were excluded by virtue that they didn't seem to think they fit in. I think we can certainly make an amendment, and I think the government amendment will cover that by simply saying “and other first nations”.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I think the point was that they didn't want to be included before their land claims were settled.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, but not all of them did. There were some groups that came in, and I think it was the Dogrib that specifically said they believe there should be something that looks after the entire Mackenzie Valley. Their view was to put them in the bill specifically and say “and the Dogrib at such time as they sign their treaty”.

• 1135

I never got the feeling from that particular group that they were opposed to it being the whole Mackenzie Valley.

Ms. Louise Hardy: This board will be set up—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Excuse, Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We're going back and forth, and that's probably not the point.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We are at the beginning of this study and if we start interrupting each other...

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. Well said.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ladies, let's try to follow the proper procedure.

Ms. Hardy, you were making a point.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: The point is their land claims aren't settled. Decisions will be made on their land before they have finished their land claims. Their input is diluted, and once this board is set up decisions could be made that affect their land and their land claims process.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my colleagues that we are on the first amendment and that there are 150 of them.

We should also realize that the first amendment goes to the very heart of the subject; it is probably worth devoting a bit more time to this first amendment, and later on things should go smoothly.

We are doing a clause-by-clause study of the bill and we have to take the time required to debate each of these clauses.

I want to make clear that I do not intend to filibuster. We've already seen an example of that. But the party in power and all the other parties must understand why Ms. Hardy is making this amendment, why I have moved one and someone else has also.

I'd like to ask my colleagues to show some patience in studying the first clause. Once we've had a full debate, I think that things should proceed smoothly.

Concerning Ms. Hardy's amendment, it is one that I support. As I understood it, people from the North Slave region, along with the South Slave and the Deh Cho, did not agree with the setting up of a board for them when they had not yet concluded an agreement on their land claims.

As for people's fear about a dual system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, I'd like to remind you of what an environmental group told us last week. They claimed that it will be feasible for a dual system to be established in the North West Territories, one for the Sahtu and the Gwich'in who have already made their claims and another system that would come under the present North West Territories legislation.

I wanted to mention in passing that I intend to support Ms. Hardy's amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. I wanted to remind committee members that they are not to speak directly to each other but to make remarks through the Chair, as Mr. Bachand did. That's why I gave the floor to Ms. Hardy. In any case, I think we are off to a good start.

We shall continue our debate. Are there any other comments? Then we shall vote on the amendment of the NDP member, Ms. Hardy.

(The amendment is negatived)

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have another question concerning procedure. Are there various ways of proceeding in committee? Is it possible, for instance, to decide that a clause is carried on division without it being put to a vote? Can we decide in other instances to call for a recorded vote? Was it proper procedure for the Chairman to declare just now that the amendment was rejected, after noting the majority vote?

The Chairman: We were dealing only with the amendment.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

The Chairman: It was rejected.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But I wanted to know if—

The Chairman: Clause 2 has not been carried because there are still motions left to be debated.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I understand, but I want to know how we are going to vote on these different amendments. Will it be by a show of hands? We can also have a recorded vote. We can note as well that it is on division.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But in the present case, you did not refer to division or a recorded vote. You simply noted as Chairman that the amendment was defeated, I do not challenge that, because I think you are right. But I want us to follow the proper procedure. Is a show of hands sufficient?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Fine.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Bachand, you can ask that a clause be carried or defeated on division unless the members request that the vote be taken by a simple show of hands. I have no objection to that.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Good enough.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We can vote by a show of hands.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, it boils down to the same thing. I understand that the amendment was defeated. I saw the result and I certainly wouldn't challenge the Chair's decision on something so clear-cut.

• 1140

The Chairman: You always raise good points, Mr. Bachand. Your experience comes in handy.

Are there any other amendments to clause 2?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I move that clause 2 of Bill C-6 be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 2 with the following:

tion, the Sahtu First Nation or any body representing other Dene or Métis of the North

This is at the request of the Dogrib Nation.

[Translation]

I move that clause 2 of Bill C-6 be amended by replacing lines 20 and 21 on page 2 with the following:

tion, the Sahtu First Nation or any body representing other Dene or Métis of the North.

The Chairman: Any debate?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Will you wait, please, until I find the passage?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, de we have the French text of this amendment?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: On Page 5? I see.

The Chairman: You're quick on the uptake this morning.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes, I didn't have time for a second cup of coffee.

Could you explain to me the purpose of this amendment, Mr. Patry?

Mr. Bernard Patry: This amendment is made at the request of the Dogrib. The Dogrib and other First Nations are afraid that under the present wording, once their land claims have been settled, these First Nations may have a body and speak on behalf of other nations like the Yellowknife Métis and other nations in the Mackenzie Valley.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put a question to my colleague Mr. Patry. The paragraph with line 20 defines the term First Nation. The effect of your amendment, Mr. Patry, would be to remove "of the North Slave, South Slave or Deh Cho region of the Mackenzie Valley".

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, absolutely not. It's simply a matter of changing one term on line 20 of the English text and line 30 of the French text.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): There are two changes, to lines 30 and 31 only.

Mr. Claude Bachand: This paragraph reads as follows, Mr. Chairman:

"First Nations" means the Gwich'in, the Sahtu or a body representing the Dene or Métis of the North Slave, South Slave or Deh Cho region of the Mackenzie Valley.

In the French text you will be adding the words "d'autres".

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, it will read: "tout organisme représentant d'autres Dénés ou Métis".

Mr. Claude Bachand: And the rest of the paragraph stands.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes. We're simply adding two words, that is those words underlined on page 5 of the French version of the amendment. It's simply a matter of adding those two words.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I don't understand the amendment at all.

There are two things. First, I'm not sure that you're not granting status to any native or first nations group from northern Canada if you stop at “North”.

Mr. Bernard Patry: You don't stop.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay. You can explain that in a second.

Second, these people all have designated leaders who represent them. So if you take “any body”, that means you can end up with two or three groups from one subgroup, all vying for the same representation.

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop, please.

• 1145

Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Members might remember the comment from two groups that intervened to appear as witnesses before you. One was the Dogrib, who expressed a deep concern that with the definition of first nation as it is, since their land claim is going to be first, they would somehow be considered to be or interpreted to be the only group that might represent the Dene of the North Slave. They do not want it interpreted that they speak for or must represent the Dene of Yellowknife. It's a different treaty—Treaty 8, not Treaty 11—and they're both of the North Slave.

By using the English words “other Dene or Métis”, we know there's at least a second group of Dene in the North Slave. There are three groups of Métis in the North Slave. If we use the word “other” and broaden the definition, the Dogrib will be less concerned.

The second group was the Métis of the South Slave. There are two groups of Métis in the South Slave. They do not represent each other. Both groups are not at the same table negotiating. By changing it to the word “other”, we make sure both will be consulted further on this bill.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll go back to my comment on the word “any”. If you leave “other” in—I understand the justification for that—we would be willing to take the word “any” out.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Haley.

[English]

Mr. Peter Haley (Acting Chief, Resource Strategies, Northern Affairs Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I think what was there before was “a body”. We're just changing it to “any body”. It was a justice department drafter's recommendation.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier (Legal Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): And it's to match the French, as well.

Mr. Peter Haley: As far as your other question is concerned, Mr. Keddy, does the amendment stop at “North”, I think you'll see this all the way through the amendments. This is the justice department drafter's wording, and it does not stop at “North”. It would read—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: North Slave, South Slave.....

Mr. Peter Haley: Exactly. It would finish the definition.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion? Then we'll vote.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, we will be voting on the amendment to lines 20 and 21 in the English text and 30 in the French text, is that so?

The Chairman: Yes, line 30 of the French version,

[English]

in English, line 20 and 21 on page 2, with the following....

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, if we leave the paragraph as it stands, we could assume that in addition to the Gwich'in and Sahtu nations, all the Métis nations of all the regions concerned will be included. Is that correct? By adding the term "any" it becomes more selective. So I repeat that if we left the clause as it was, it would mean any body representing the Dene and the Métis. I don't see the need for this amendment.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Except, Mr. Bachand—

Mr. Claude Bachand: Why specify "d'autres" in the French version?

Mr. Bernard Patry: It is preferable to make clear we are referring to any organization representing other Dene or Métis. The Dogrib are not advocating that once matters are concluded in the southern area, the other Dene should not have a chance to be represented. It's as simple as that. The English text is clearer in this respect.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): That answers my question. As you said, it's a little easier to understand. Would it improve the amendment to say “the Sahtu First Nation or any body representing any other Dene or Métis of the North...”? I think if I understand Mr. Bachand's concern it's that it's limiting rather than inclusive.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

• 1150

Mr. John Bryden: I find what Mr. Keddy is saying about “any” a little disturbing. I don't accept that the indefinite article “a” and “any” have the same meaning. I take Mr. Keddy's point. If you say “any” you open the door to absolutely any organization, bona fide or not, and any number more than one, I suppose. However, if you leave it as simply “a body”, you at least allow a little discretion and interpretation in what other bodies might be involved. “Any” might give you serious problems. I'd be interested in your comments.

The Chairman: Mr. Haley.

Mr. Peter Haley: Just as long as “a body” isn't interpreted as one body representing—

Mr. John Bryden: No, it would not be.

Ms. Judi Longfield: No.

An hon. member: No, because you have “other”.

Mr. John Bryden: You've already got that.

Mr. Peter Haley: I don't see any difference between “a” and....

Ms. Judi Longfield: You just match the French with tout organisme and then you say un organisme.

Mr. John Bryden: What is the French amendment?

An hon. member: All organizations.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: So I think “any” concurred more with tout organisme, but then you could say un organisme.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I think that would resolve that. It allows for a number of organizations but for only one representative per organization. “Any” sounds as though, if we have an organization, there could be five of us trying to negotiate for the single organization. I think that's what you were saying. It's not the number of organizations but the number of people recognized to....

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): At first glance, when I read the amendment which would specify "any body representing other Dene or Métis of the North", I find it to be a bit much. "Any body" could be interpreted broadly, and I think we should be specific here. Who represents them? Are we talking about an agency elected by the people, the band council or what? I find it very vague, and I think it goes too far. If we say "any body", it will never end. Anyone could represent them. I think the wording has to be clearer.

The Chairman: Ms. Grenier.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: "Any body" refers to organizations recognized by the natives themselves, not to just any organization.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: That is what the amendment says.

The Chairman: The amendment reads: "or any body representing other Dene or Métis of the North". The amendment adds the words "d'autres" to the French version.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: No, “any”

Ms. Judi Longfield: It's always “any”, isn't it, even in English and French?

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: In French we haven't changed anything. It's the word «tout» that is there, and then we change the English for “any”.

Ms. Judi Longfield: That's right.

What if it's “any recognized body representing other Dene or Métis”?

Mr. John Bryden: Then you have the problem of who recognizes—

Ms. Judi Longfield: But you're going to have to have a recognized body.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Pardon me. We will now go to Mr. Dunlop, followed by Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: The possibility is available to interpret “a body” to exclude a group. By using the word “any” you offer comfort, because it's inclusive. You can't keep a group out if they represent one group of Dene or one group of Métis. It's just more comfortable to use the word “any”.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not trying to belabour this issue, Mr. Chairman, but again I have two questions. First of all, can we amend these amendments? Is that something we should be discussing? Do we vote on them the way they're written, or do we have the opportunity to change them?

• 1155

Second, if we can't amend them and we just take the word “any” out, is it not covered then by the word “other”? I'm not pretending to be a legal expert, but is it not covered by “other”?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Haley, followed by Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. Peter Haley: I think, Mr. Keddy, that this was the justice department drafters' preference, but if we call upon them again to interpret “any” versus “a” within the context of the act, that will solve the problem. I personally don't mind either one.

Mr. John Bryden: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that as in the original version without the amendments, in English it says “a body” and in French it says tout organisme. I think we are going around in circles here. If we turn to “a”, we still don't need to change the French, because I would assume that tout organisme has a nuance that's slightly different from the English, and that the problem doesn't exist in French. The problem can't exist in French, because obviously the drafter didn't see it the first time around. But it does exist in English.

I think “a” and “any”—I'm very concerned about Mr. Keddy's concerns, and I see the Bloc Québécois is supportive as well. I would recommend that we just put in “other” and leave “a”, and leave the French alone, other than any appropriate adjustment.

Is that reasonable? Mr. Patry, do you have any problem there?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I think in English it's easier than in French. Really, in French when we say tout organisme représentant d'autres Dénés ou Métis, it's quite important—I mean about the Dogrib. This was requested....

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, yes, d'autres is important. No, no, we do want d'autres.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Oh, yes.

Mr. Bernard Patry: If you keep d'autres, that's fine.

Mr. John Bryden: It's only “any” and “a”.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: In English, “or a body representing any other Dene...”.

Mr. John Bryden: We just change the motion to read “a body” and insert the word “other”, so the motion would only have that one change, rather than two changes. Is that understood?

Now, has the motion been moved?

Mr. John Finlay: No.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Will one of you move a subamendment? Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Bryden, just to answer you, if you keep “a body” it means one body. If you keep “any” it's broader—it could be more than one body, in English. That's why I will stick to “any body”.

Mr. John Bryden: No, it is not restrictive in that sense—“a” body representing “other”—because “other” gives you the choice of more than one. It's not restrictive.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. I will give the floor to the researcher. I think she has a suggestion.

[English]

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): One of the items I think this proposed amendment is attempting to cover is the situation where with several groups—or more than one group, in any event—at the table.... We want to try to capture that in the amendment. If you use the term “a” instead of “any”, from a statutory interpretation point of view, if one looks down the road to any situation in which this could wind up in court, you do run the risk of a court interpreting “a” as meaning “a body”.

The term “any” would certainly get rid of that complication, which is not to say that it might not involve others, because of its breadth. If the idea is to capture the idea that there may be more than one body, an alternative would just be to use the plural noun “bodies”, and not have “a” or “any”, but simply “bodies representing other Dene or Métis”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mary. That was a good explanation.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, wonderful.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Fine. Is there debate? Will someone move a sub- amendment?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I'll move that amendment that “any body” be changed to “bodies”, so that lines 20 and 21 on page 2 will read:

tion, the Sahtu First Nation or bodies representing other Dene or Métis of the North

• 1200

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like clarification on one point. If we do this, will this allow more than one group of people to represent a single subgroup?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: No.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Why not?

Mr. Will Dunlop: The definition will change who is consulted, but it won't change who the minister finally chooses to appoint. There's still only going to be one seat, one appointee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. We will now vote on the subamendment.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Could someone tell me what the French translation is?

The Chairman: The French version does not change.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Well, in any event, I think there is a problem, because the French amendment on page 5 of my notes only deals with "d'autres Dénés ou Métis". Unless I've misunderstood, we are making a distinction here between "bodies" and "any body". It's not the same thing. I realize that the English version always takes precedence over the French version!

Mr. Bernard Patry: Not in Quebec. Further on, you'll see some amendments that only apply to the French version. It's clearer. There are other clarifications further on.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But how is the English amendment translated into French?

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden's subamendment?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Bachand, in English it says "bodies", whereas in French it says "tout organisme", which is more general. That's why it is very clear in French.

Mr. Claude Bachand: What if we said "d'organismes" instead of "tout organisme"?

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Chairman, do I hear bells?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, you hear bells.

[Translation]

The Chairman: How much time?

[English]

Fifteen minutes for the vote? I'll stop immediately, but we'll finish this one, and then we'll walk, so that we finish at least one.

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Labrador, Lib): If you're going to get through all of these amendments, I would suggest that you start grouping the voting into three categories.

The Chairman: No, we cannot do that. When we go clause by clause, we go clause by clause.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We cannot do this now.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will vote on Mr. Bryden's subamendment, which reads as follows:

[English]

tion, the Sahtu First Nation or bodies representing other Dene or Métis of the North

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: And in French?

The Chairman: In French, we retain "tout organisme représentant d'autres Dénés ou Métis". Is that right, Mr. Patry?

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's it.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: We could perhaps put the word "organisme" in the plural.

The Chairman: Ms. Grenier is suggesting that we put the word "organisme" in the plural.

Mr. Claude Bachand: That's what Mr. Bachand suggested even before Ms. Grenier did.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That would read "tous les organismes".

Mr. Claude Bachand: No, just "organismes".

The Chairman: Going by what Mr. Bachand said, I thought he wanted that word in the plural.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: "Organismes" in the plural.

The Chairman: Yes, in the plural. Do you agree?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, fine. We see an agreement, and so I agree to that.

The Chairman: So we can vote on the subamendment.

(The subamendment carries)

The Chairman: Let's move on to the French version, where the word "organisme" should be put in the plural. Who would move this amendment to the French? Mr. Bachand, seconded by Mr. Bryden, moves that Bill C-6, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 3, with the following: "organismes représentant d'autres Dénés ou Métis".

Mary, please.

Ms. Mary Hurley: If you adopt the amendment as moved, the word "tout" will be in the singular, while "organismes" will be in the plural. If you want to change the proposed amendment, you will have to change the word "tout" on the previous line.

• 1205

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, I thought that Mr. Bachand's subamendment moved that we say "des organismes" or "d'organismes" instead of "tout organisme".

The Chairman: You want us to strike out the word "tout" and replace it by...

Mr. Claude Bachand: "D'organismes" in the plural...

The Chairman: Ms. Grenier.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: If we put "des organismes", the French will no longer read properly, and its structure will be awkward. This really has to work right. Before it read: "Outre la première nation des Gwich'in ou celle du Sahtu, tout organisme". We can't say "des organismes" or "d'organismes", but rather, "tous organismes".

Mr. Bernard Patry: "Tous les organismes".

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: The sentence won't read properly if we say "des organismes" or "d'organismes".

Mr. Claude Bachand: "Tous les organismes représentant d'autres".

The Chairman: "Tous les organismes représentant d'autres Dénés ou Métis".

(The sub-amendment carries)

Mr. Bernard Patry: Later we will be moving other amendments to clause 2. I would like us now to vote on what we were just talking about, which affects lines 20 and 21. Let's vote on the amendment as amended.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Ten minutes left.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're talking about amendment G-2.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Will there be other amendments to clause 2 later?

The Chairman: Yes. We are voting on the amendments to lines 29 and 30 of the French version, which correspond to lines 20 and 21 of the English version. We are not voting on clause 2 since other amendments will be made.

Mr. Claude Bachand: But wasn't that done? Didn't you vote on the amendments to the English and French versions?

The Chairman: No, just the subamendment to lines 20 and 21. Mr. Patry is right.

(The amendment as amended carries)

The Chairman: We are going to adjourn until 3:30.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Other amendments are coming up.

The Chairman: Including amendments from the NDP.

We will adjourn until 3:30 this afternoon. The meeting will resume in the same room.