AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 27, 2003

0930

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

1005

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1010

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon (General Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Brenda Kustra (Executive Advisor, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1015

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Ms. Brenda Kustra

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1020

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

1025

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Brenda Kustra

1030

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

1035

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

1040

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

1045

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

1050

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

1055

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1100

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Brenda Kustra

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Brenda Kustra

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon

1105

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Andrew Beynon

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

1110

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

1115

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

1120

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Andrew Beynon

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Brenda Kustra

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Pat Martin

1125

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1130

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Beynon

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1135

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

1140

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 056

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order, please.

We will resume our study of Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts. We're into the clause-by-clause consideration, but I'd like to explain what it is we are doing this morning.

No one has the amendments. We are doing the technical amendments or the typos or the things that are evident, obvious, and everybody agrees with. That's all we're doing today. In addition to that, if an amendment is tabled on a technical change and it's voted, it's not the end of it. When we go to clause-by-clause the real way, every clause is still subject to amendment, okay? Is that fair enough, so nobody feels that there are ulterior motives or anything? We're just trying to clean out the obvious.

Are we ready to proceed? Who will take the lead on this? Will it be the parliamentary secretary? Rather than going, “Does clause 1 carry? Does clause 2 carry?”--I won't do that. I will ask Mr. Hubbard to lead us into it and make his explanations. If it appears as though we're going to spend a lot of time on any clause, we just won't deal with it. We'll deal with it when we come back.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

À (1005)

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my assumption that the clerk has had a series of amendments tabled. Are there copies available? Some members are asking. Is that the diskette you were talking about?

The Chair: Here's what happened there. A diskette of amendments ended up at my office. The clerk's office asked for it, and when I found out that they asked for it I said I don't want to see them. And I give you my word, I have not seen them. They are inconsequential anyway, and no one has seen them. Although they came through my office, we didn't look at them. And now we have them in a pile. So we can distribute these, please.

The Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice are at the table. If you have any questions, you can address them to them.

Mr. Hubbard, I'll leave the floor to you.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm a little behind in terms of their circulation, but our apologies.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if you want to deal with that packet that has been circulated on a one-by-one basis. I can say most of these are technical in nature and it's a matter of putting before the committee the fact that certain minor technical problems have been observed in terms of how the original bill was presented in the House. And with that, these changes are not substantial but merely refer to some very minor changes in wording.

Mr. Chair, do you want to deal with those one by one?

The Chair: I'd like you to go directly to each amendment. If I'm reading the first one properly, if all we're doing here is adding “such that”, then let's get directly to the point.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So dealing with it by what we called in our packet amendment G-1, I would move, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-7 in clause 5 be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 20 and 21 on page 4 with the following:

members of the council, such that at least a majority of them are elected;

And Ms. Phinney would second that.

The Chair: There's no need to move or amend. We'll do it on consensus because we will deal with each and every clause at another time.

Are we okay with that “such that”?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: We move on to amendment G-2: that subclause 10(3) be amended by replacing lines 25 to 27 on page 8 with the following:

The Minister, or a person or body designated by the Minister, may at any time carry out an assessment of a band's financial position and, if the Minister considers it necessary, the Minister may require that

I would make that motion.

The Chair: Are there questions on that? The department is here.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): On division.

The Chair: We are only trying to get a consensus. We will go back to the clause-by-clause when our consultations are finished. There is a consensus and you will have another opportunity to ask that question.

[English]

We have consensus.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Amendment G-3 states that Bill C-7, subclause 11(1), be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 8 with the following: “law, authorize an impartial person or body”.

À (1010)

The Chair: Are there any questions? I want you to tell me if I go too fast. We'll come back to amendment G-3.

Now to amendment G-4.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would move that Bill C-7 in paragraph 11(1)(a) be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 9 with the following:

alleging a breach or the unfair or improper application, by the council or an employee of the band, of this Act, a code or regulations made under section 32; or

The Chair: Are there questions? On consensus, is amendment G-4 okay?

G-4 is okay.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Amendment G-5 states that Bill C-7 and subclause 11(5) be amended by replacing line 27 on page 9 with the following:

which a right of appeal is provided by a code, regulations made under section 32, a land code adopted under the First Nations Land Management Act or a first nation law enacted under that Act.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I'd like further clarification on that one. Do we speak to it now, or do we come back?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would like one of the advisers to give us some explanation. I don't fully understand the importance of that.

Could someone speak to that, please?

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): What this amendment is doing is providing that if, for example, under the First Nations Land Management Act there is already a right of appeal and a separate process of appeal for either laws or decisions taken under that act, then that process of appeal will be followed, not the alternative process as provided in Bill C-7.

The idea is that this bill will not affect regimes that are already in place and have been established under other statutes, in particular under the First Nations Land Management Act.

Mr. Pat Martin: Can I ask a further question on that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Does this stem from the issue raised by the Quebec Bar Association that all other federal acts have primacy over anything in Bill C-7? For instance, if a band had a collective agreement with its staff that was in contradiction to the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Labour Code would have primacy.

But if I could clarify further, apparently it used to be that the band and council couldn't do anything that was in contradiction to the Indian Act. After Bill C-7, they won't be able to do anything in contradiction to any federal statute.

Is that why the existing appeal mechanism would have primacy over the appeal mechanism contemplated in Bill C-7?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Technically, that's not the purpose of this amendment. I'm not sure exactly what your understanding is about the primacy of first nation laws vis-à-vis other--

The Chair: Mr. Beynon was there, maybe he can--

Mr. Andrew Beynon (General Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes, I think I can provide a short answer.

This amendment does not relate to what the Quebec Bar Association raised and the relationship between regulations and first nations laws. It's not about that. As Mr. Salembier explained, this amendment is based on dealing with other statutory provisions that have a redress mechanism, making sure there's not an overlap between this act and the those.

The Chair: Are you okay, Mr. Martin?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

The Chair: Are we okay on this one, on consensus?

Amendment G-5 is okay. We can go back to amendment G-3.

Mr. Vellacott, do you have a question?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Let's get an explanation of why we're removing the part about the impartial body established under section 18. Is it a redundancy? Why the removal of that?

Ms. Brenda Kustra (Executive Advisor, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): There could be redress mechanisms established outside of section 18. The thinking is that the council of the band could authorize that particular redress mechanism to deal with laws under this particular bill, Bill C-7. So it's not restrictive. It allows them to utilize an existing or a new impartial body that could be designed at some point in the future.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Is everyone okay with G-3 on consensus? G-3 is okay.

Now we're at G-6.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Chair, under G-6, I would move that paragraph 16(1)(d) of Bill C-7 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 11 with the following: “of the band and the charging of fees for those services”.

À (1015)

The Chair: Are there any questions? If you need time, just take it. There's no problem.

While you're doing that, I've just been given a revised G-7, which I think is being distributed now.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's not numbered. Can I assume the amendment that has just been circulated is G-7?

The Chair: It should be numbered G-7.

Do you need an explanation of G-6? Who will provide that?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Would this mean that if a band member or resident on that reserve or in that band community wanted the financial statements or whatever, there would then be a possibility--if somebody wanted to play funny--the person could actually charge some exorbitant fee for the provision of that service?

Mr. Paul Salembier: I think the short answer would be no. Financial statements must be provided. They must be publicly available. If you look at subclause 9(3), you'll see that they must “be provided to any person requesting one on payment of a reasonable fee”.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So here then you're saying the phrase “a reasonable fee”--whatever that means to people--is enough. Okay. Let it go. Yes.

The Chair: Is everyone okay with that?

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Where do you see that statement about reasonable fees?

Mr. Paul Salembier: You would see it in clause 9, subclause (3).

The Chair: Amendment G-6 is okay on consensus.

The G-7 you have on page 12 and 13 you can cross out. We have an insert.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and our apologies.

The insert has a 2 at the top and underneath E016-011.34A. It's a motion that Bill C-7, clause 16, be amended by adding, after line 34 on page 11, the following under “disposal of waste”:

Notwithstanding subsection (2), while a band law is in force in relation to the disposal of waste on reserve lands, regulations made under section 73 of the Indian Act respecting the disposal of waste do not apply in respect of those lands.

The Chair: Are there any questions on that? Amendment G-7 is okay on consensus.

Now for G-8.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, under G-8, I would move that Bill C-7 in clause 17 be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 12 with the following: “...(com)mercial use of soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl, peat, timber and wild or cultivated crops”. I think the word “commercial” should have come before that. It only leaves out that line, reading that first.

Is that correct, Paul?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, the word is split at the end of line 6.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: So it should begin with “commercial use”.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: Yes, the first part is on the previous line.

The Chair: G-8 is okay, and we're on G-9.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, G-9 would take a long time to read. Do you want me to read it all?

À (1020)

The Chair: No, we don't need to read it into the record because we're going to officially go to the clause-by-clause later on. We need an explanation, though, of what we're changing here; I would think we'd want that.

Who's going to give it, Mr. Hubbard, you or the department?

Mr. Paul Salembier: What we're providing in these additional subclauses is that band laws that are made under clause 17 will first displace the Indian timber regulations and the powers of the minister under subsection 58(4) of the Indian Act. Otherwise, this would result in a conflict; the regulations in that particular subsection would overrule the band law, and we don't want that to happen.

Second, it will also provide that these band laws regarding the removal of resources from reserves shall displace section 93 of the Indian Act for the same reason; otherwise, section 93 would apply with a lower penalty. This will allow the band to put its own law in place with its own penalty.

Third, it will also provide that band laws that are made under paragraph 17(1)(d), which is trespassing, will displace section 30 and paragraph 31(1)(c) of the Indian Act. The last subclause provides that moneys that are collected by a first nation under a law made under this act will not be Indian moneys because such moneys would otherwise have to be managed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The Chair: It's protecting the band laws so they supersede some of them, supersede these...?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, it's in order to ensure that the band laws will be effective on their own terms.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: The only thing I'd ask is, given there's no direct reference to fish anywhere in here, is that by design? The issue was raised that Bill C-7 doesn't deal with fish. Am I correct in that?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: This particular section deals only with timber.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's strictly for timber. So soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl, peat, and wild and cultivated crops are all within the parameters of “timber”?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: I'm sorry. I was speaking to the proposal G-9.

Mr. Pat Martin: I thought I was too. G-9 is a full page, right? Am I on the same page? I'm not trying to be difficult. It's because the other clauses seem to be in line with exactly what Mr. Salembier was saying. The disposition of resources--did you not comment on the disposition of resources?

Mr. Paul Salembier: The disposition of resources? On amendment G-8 you'll notice that because we included a positive recitation of the areas of jurisdiction, it was no longer needed to exclude certain areas such as fish, which was excluded in the bill as it previously read. Because it's not dealt with positively in paragraph 17(1)(a), it's no longer needed to make comments on it, to provide qualifications regarding fish, in the further subclauses.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just so I'm not losing my mind here, you dealt with soil, sand, gravel, and clay in G-8 and you mentioned soils, clay, etc, in G-9, but it's only for clarification, is that right? Actually, I'm lost here. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Mr. Paul Salembier: I'll try.

What we've done in G-8 is to explicitly set out the areas of jurisdiction or the types of resources in respect to which laws can be made, and especially regarding their disposition. That clarifies the earlier reference.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's the wish of the government to not have fish included in that list, then.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Right, just as they were excluded in the bill as it was first tabled in Parliament.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point I'm getting at is we'll be moving an amendment to try to include fish, but it will be on that list, so what you're doing will have no effect on a subsequent amendment to add fish to that list.

À (1025)

Mr. Paul Salembier: Exactly.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Wouldn't a wild or cultivated crop include fish? Why wouldn't it?

Mr. Paul Salembier: I think we would have to look at the ordinary meaning and probably the dictionary definition of crop. Although in common parlance people talk about cultivating fish in fish farms, we'd have to see whether a court would interpret fish to be a crop in that sense.

The Chair: If we are considering adding fish, it's no longer a technical amendment. I think we'd prefer to leave that until we do the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Pat Martin: We'll do it later when our opportunity comes.

The Chair: I don't consider that a technical amendment.

Mr. Beynon.

Mr. Andrew Beynon: As a clarification, I agree with what Paul has said regarding the likely scope of the term “crop”, but I would also draw your attention to the French version. It uses the term récoltes, and it's unlikely that would be extended to include the notion of harvesting fish. The nature of récoltes tends to be an agricultural concept.

The Chair: Go ahead. I want you to take all the time you need, and if it's longer we'll do it later.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

There's a big difference between a harvested crop and a cultivated crop. I think everyone would agree you harvest fish out in the Atlantic, but you cultivate fish in a tank the size of this table on dry land sometimes, in the latest style of fish cultivation.

I'm trying to get fish added to this, so I'd be pleased if the courts interpreted cultivated crop to include fish. You could make a good argument that it does. If it's your intention to exclude fish, then maybe that language should be changed.

The Chair: Do you want us to accept it, knowing that you can amend it later, or do you want us to not deal with this one?

Mr. Pat Martin: As long as I understand it now, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

So on consensus we accept the proposed amendment, subject to studying and reverting back to what was there before, if you wish. There's no problem there.

Next is G-10.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: On G-10, I move that Bill C-7 in subclause 19(1) be amended by replacing line 7 on page 14 with the following, under “Contravention of band laws”: “A band law made under section 16 or 17 may provide that a”.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, are you okay with that?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm just trying to grasp the significance again.

The Chair: Okay.

Don't feel bad if you need time or have questions. This has all been thrown on you this morning.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just hold that one for now, if you don't mind.

The Chair: We are holding G-10.

Do you want an explanation that would help you in your research?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Maybe we could quickly do that. But what about clauses 16 and 17, in terms of the relevance of that?

The Chair: Will someone explain G-10 to us?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: The way it's written right now, penalties could be added to any band law, including law made under other acts of Parliament. Amendment G-10 clarifies the fact that these penalties apply only to laws made under the First Nations Governance Act. That was always intended, but this further clarifies it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So as it presently reads, it would inadvertently apply to other acts that presently stand or would be made. You're trying to rule that out. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: If a first nation made a law under another act of Parliament it could be interpreted that the penalties in the FNGA would apply to that particular law. We want to indicate here that the laws subject to the penalties are those laws made under the First Nations Governance Act only.

À (1030)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: All right. I'm okay by that.

The Chair: Clauses 16, 17, and 18 allow the making of laws. We refer to clauses 16 and 17, but not clause 18. Could you explain why?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. Clause 18 relates to laws that govern the internal procedures operation of the band and the band council. Therefore they're not the types of laws to which you would want to be attaching a $10,000 penalty.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, are you okay with that?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are we okay on consensus on amendment G-10? Yes? Thank you.

On amendment G-11....

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I would move, on amendment G-11, that Bill C-7, in clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 14 with the following: “of a band law made under paragraph 16(1)(e) or 17(1)(a) or (b) may be”.

The Chair: Do we have questions on that, clarification?

We're at amendment G-11, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are we going back to the previous amendment, or what's the significance here again?

The Chair: I think your best bet is to ask the department to explain it. They're the ones who moved them forward.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

Is this just kind of harking back to amendment G-10 again? Is this similar in nature?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Exactly. It's similar in nature to amendment G-10.

Right now, we're worried that the existing definition about a “law that is intended to prevent adverse effects on the environment” might be interpreted in an unusual manner, because when you look at the law-making powers, they don't talk about a specific power being for the purpose of preventing adverse effects on the environment.

So what we've done, especially since we have a very high fine here, is to identify specifically the types of laws to which such a penalty can be attached. We're hoping that will remove any uncertainty about the power of a first nation to attach such a high penalty to a particular law.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So it just narrows it a bit or specifies it more.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. We think it clarifies it. I think it provides additional certainty for a court to have comfort that in fact they can attach this high penalty to that particular law.

The Chair: You're okay with that?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

The Chair: That was amendment G-11.

On amendment G-12....

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I would move amendment G-12, a technical amendment again, that Bill C-7, in clause 33, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 19 with the following, under “Other regulations”....

I won't read all of those, but if explanation is needed, maybe Paul could--

The Chair: Do you have an explanation?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. What we're doing here is providing additional certainty as to the scope of the regulation-making powers under the bill.

Regarding certain powers that might be thought of as affecting rights, we feel that it is safest to set out those powers explicitly so that it's not left to an interpretive exercise for the courts.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, did you have a question?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Is this a change to what's currently in the bill, or are you actually adding...? You're taking out lines 6 through 10, so you're taking out four lines and adding a great deal. This doesn't add any more authority or powers or regulations not previously contemplated? Does it expand the right of the minister or Governor in Council to make regulations more than was explained to us in the first go-around of the bill?

Mr. Paul Salembier: We don't believe it adds any powers. In each case, these were regulations that had been contemplated. There is, however, case law that at times will restrict the purpose to which general wording, such as the wording that's being replaced, can be used--the purposes for which it can be used.

Therefore, in the interest of adding additional certainty, we have brought forward this amendment, or the amendment is before the committee, in order to clarify that those powers are there and to remove uncertainty.

So in each case, the paragraphs in question relate to a specific section of the act for which it had always been intended that the existing clause 33 would be used to make regulations.

À (1035)

Mr. Pat Martin: Can I ask then why you felt it necessary to add this additional information? What were you afraid of happening if these lines 6 through 10 remained intact?

Mr. Paul Salembier: We want to make sure that if regulations were attacked on the basis of the generality of the wording in the existing clause, the regulations would stand. Therefore by providing the specific wording we can have more assurance that the regulations that had been contemplated will withstand a legal challenge that might be brought forward based on the generality of the wording that's in the existing clause.

Mr. Pat Martin: I guess I'll vote against this when the time comes, but I would just point out--

The Chair: There's no problem then. If you're not prepared to support it, we won't deal with it, and they can bring the amendment when we do the clause-by-clause. No problem.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think that in this case then, if I could explain why I would ask that we not.... It's my position that we shouldn't support this one because the commitment has been made that it will be first nations people who draft the regulations. I think this is giving at least direction, or limiting, or in some way giving parameters to what those regulations will be by--

The Chair: We are not opening the debate, because if I allow you to debate, I will have to go around the table. We won't deal with government amendment G-12.

Mr. Pat Martin: Then I will simply say no consensus.

The Chair: Government amendment G-13.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-7 be amended by adding after line 38 on page 19 the following, under “Deemed Repeal of Orders”.... Again, it's quite lengthy.

The Chair: Are there questions or explanations?

Mr. Pat Martin: I request an explanation.

The Chair: All right, and then that will give you time to read, and we'll give you time to read after.

Would you like to explain what we're trying to do here?

Mr. Paul Salembier: The purpose of this clause is to avoid a conflict between the existing Indian Act election regulations and the sections of the Indian Act relating to elections and a new code that might be adopted by a first nation before the day on which those sections will be repealed.

Under the act at present, although there is a two-year period contemplated before new election regulations, the default or fallback regulations will be adopted under clause 5. At the same date while the provisions of the Indian Act relating to elections will be repealed, there's that two-year period. But even before then, a first nation can decide to adopt its own leadership selection code or it could decide to adopt the default regulations, again, by a vote of its membership. So, were that to happen, then you would have two sets of rules in existence, and the purpose of this clause is to avoid any conflict between them.

The Chair: To give precedence to the one ratified by the community.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Exactly.

The Chair: Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like an explanation. If we accept this technical amendment, will we be able to move a regular amendment to what has been added? For example, we might wish to add a paragraph d) to section 36(1). Could we do that?

The Chair: Yes, and you could also put back the clause as it was before. The aim of this exercise is to accommodate the members of the committee. As you can see, we are not voting and we won't vote at the end of the afternoon session. We are only trying to save time.

I should mention that today we are agreeing on consensus on the proposed sections. I will ask this bill to be printed again with the corrections we made today. For the real clause-by-clause, we will use this document. Agreed?

Mr. Paul Crête: It won't prevent anyone to move an amendment.

The Chair: We will be able to do all we can usually do during a clause-by-clause study.

[English]

Are we okay with this?

À (1040)

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm apprehensive about this and I don't want to give consent to this clause.

The Chair: I'll ask the committee. Do you want to go by unanimous consent or do you want one member to rule on whether we enclose this on consensus or not or when someone.... If one member defers, do you want me to put it to a vote?

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Given the nature of this section, if a member of the committee has reservations about it, we should not agree to it and withdraw the amendment. These are things which have an impact on the daily practices of band councils. We shall have a real debate on this when we know if there are amendments or not. I think we should defer the study of this section, as my colleague is asking.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to say that my estimation of what we're going through right now is that it's really questionable, because all of these are going to appear in the major document we're going to go through clause by clause. In other words, it makes no difference whether we talk about technical changes right now. We're going to put those in the act, and if we don't agree to leave the changes that are being recommended in the major document, which we're going to be working on very shortly, it's all irrelevant.

I don't think we should have a discussion. If someone here, I or anybody else, feels that further work has to be done on this, let's go full speed ahead, because really what we're doing here is not really relevant to the whole process. All of these are going to be included in the final document that is going to be presented to us for further discussion and debate in the days and months ahead.

The Chair: The thing is what we are doing here I don't think has been done before. That's my way of trying to push the word. I don't want to be accused of imposing anything, especially on the opposition. That's why if anyone doesn't agree, I'd prefer leaving it the way it was, and the department or the government can present their amendment when we do the clause-by-clause.

Had you asked for the floor before, Mr. Hubbard?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'll defer, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Hubbard, and then I'll rule.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I think that if we behave collectively in a reasonable manner, we can certainly clear up language where there is ambiguity. I think the obligation, if I may suggest to my friend Mr. Martin, is to understand that there's a difference between clearing up the ambiguity of language, then returning to debate the principle of the thing. Clearing up and knowing exactly what you may be voting against strongly on principle--they're two different things. If we can accept that Mr. Martin has the right to return to debate the matter of principle on something that we're amending, and that by amending it, we're not agreeing with it, we're just trying to make sure that we understand more clearly what it's about, and if we rely on our own common sense, we can proceed. And I think it's a useful activity because it clears out some of the underbrush.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Along the same line, Mr. Chair, this merely is presenting to us in advance an opportunity to study these proposed amendments. And in no way are we attempting to get agreement with them. It's simply putting them on the table for your staff to consider them. I'm not sure about Mr. Martin, but in any case, I'm prepared as the secretary to do what you think is best. But I think most members would appreciate getting advance notice and having an opportunity to study these. Mr. Chair, that's where we're coming from.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, then Mr. Martin.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was going to say that I think it's a decent courtesy, because we're not blindsided with this stuff coming in on the day when we're going through serious clause-by-clause. I appreciate that this is being done. I would just suggest to Mr. Martin that it might be better to do it, for your staff's sake, in the binder. Then you can know what you're dealing with instead of having to pull some of these things and do a cut and paste possibly. If you want to delete this or somebody wants to amend it, then you know what you're dealing with instead of being caught by surprise on that date because you overlooked having this in your binder. But that's your call.

The Chair: One of your amendments could be to put it back the way it was. That will be accepted by the chair.

Mr. Crête, I'm giving you last word on it as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I have heard the explanations given and I understand that this is also an information session. We should not even ask if there is a consensus, we just have to say this is an information session.

The Chair: It is more than that.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's what Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Dromisky seemed to say. For them, it was only a consultation.

À (1045)

The Chair: I will tell you what will come out of today's exercise. At the end of our meeting, I will ask your permission to have this bill reprinted. I need your permission so that the bill can be reprinted with the amendments we agreed upon today.

Mr. Paul Crête: So, if some parts are not agreed on, as Mr. Martin is asking, they won't show in the new reprint of the bill.

The Chair: Exactly.

Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: My original understanding is that we'd be dealing with items like the first few we dealt with, which were really one half of one sentence or changing “shall” to “may” or some very minor technical amendments. When I see full pages of text, I'm just apprehensive. I understand that I still have the right later to amend this or even say put it back to where it was. But I also understand that if I give approval now, the original version we've been dealing with so far disappears, and this new version appears in the books. It just clouds and muddies the issue, in my mind. I only raise it as a caution that--

The Chair: I'll be up front with you, Mr. Martin. My preference is that we should have unanimous consent if we want to change. I say consensus, but I like unanimous consent. I would just ask you to have as much goodwill as I have and not block them all just because you want to extend the debate. If that's the case, I will ask for unanimous consent on each one, okay?

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I've let most go through. There are only two I've objected to.

The Chair: We're not dealing with G-13, and we're going to G-14.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, under G-14, I would move that Bill C-7, in clause 37, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 20 with the following: “section 81, any of the paragraphs of....” I won't read the rest. It's again very limited.

The Chair: That's a technical thing. Are there any explanations?

Mr. Paul Salembier: As currently drafted, the bill refers to any bylaw, but in fact certain bylaw-making powers are going to be left in the Indian Act. Those are bylaw-making powers under section 83 regarding taxation bylaws. We don't want this transitional provision to apply to such bylaws, and therefore we have limited the types of bylaws to which it will apply by specifying the particular provisions of the Indian Act.

The Chair: Again, it's a protection of the community's....

Mr. Paul Salembier: It's to avoid a conflict, yes.

The Chair: It's not to impose things that aren't intended.

G-14 is okay, and we're on G-15.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: With G-15, Mr. Chair, again I would move that Bill C-7, in clause 37, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 20.... And again, it's an addition, for Mr. Martin's information, under “Cessation of certain by-laws”.

The Chair: All the onus is put on the band for adoption, so the band is controlling this.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's not my understanding. It's either by adoption by the band or by the imposition of the default codes under clause 5, whichever comes first.

My reservation is that by stating that, it explicitly gives it more weight, and it is more difficult for us to argue against it. Therefore, I would like this to be withheld too, unless the government chooses to amend it.

The Chair: G-15 is a no.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm still troubled by the process we're going through.

The Chair: If we open the debate on the process, we'll be here all day. At least we have some work done. It's a new thing we're trying, and hopefully it will become the rule. We're doing a courtesy, really, to the opposition by putting it on the table two weeks before we do the clause-by-clause. That's the intent here, and my intent of course is to have this work done when we move on.

Are we opening the debate on the process? I don't want to do that.

À (1050)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: No, go ahead.

The Chair: No?

Mr. Vellacott, but not on process.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This doesn't necessarily preclude the government's bringing additional amendments.

The Chair: Absolutely. There will be a deadline for submitting amendments, and it will be the same for everybody.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So other amendments could come in from the government side in addition to these. It's just that these are the ones that have been the forethought so far. There will be no need to change them, but there may be other ones.

The Chair: But the department could, through the parliamentary secretary, introduce an amendment to undo what they did today. This is not binding. This will become the document we work from, subject to being amended by a majority vote of the committee--anything.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Or in view of additional testimony, Val-d'Or, or if we had a few departmental officials back--

The Chair: We've already established our calendar for what is intended for the consultation, more witnesses, and when the clause-by-clause will be done. You've agreed to that. You have agreed that it will be before Easter. You're asking to change that now, but that's going to be dealt with after.

In the plan I will submit to you, just as a starting point, I'm putting a date and a time for submitting amendments, and I'm even asking you to impose that time limit on the department, which has never been done before. I'm being more than fair; I'm even restricting government.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: My only comment is that when we have done technical amendments on other bills, they have been for things like a difference between the English language and the French-language translation, or literally a semi-colon instead of a comma. When you get a full page of text, it's more difficult.

I'm not being difficult, and I will happily give my consent to any minor issues, but again I put it to you that when I see pages that can't help but speak to content and argument—because they may emphasize or state a certain point more clearly, which we may be against—then I have to object to it.

The Chair: I want everyone to feel comfortable saying “I don't want to deal with this today”. All I want is for us to be given the courtesy of an explanation, because sometimes you're going to have a full page of explanation, whereas other times everybody says “Oh, yes, of course”. So if we can get it done, I would prefer this.

Could we ask for an explanation of G-16, and then you can tell us how you feel about it?

You have said no to G-15. Would you like an explanation of it? It may be beneficial for the next time.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, if you have anything to add on G-15.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: Yes, I would like to be very clear about the proposal for G-15. This change is being proposed to avoid a gap. Right now, first nations and certain bands have already made financial bylaws under section 83 of the Indian Act, and we want to make sure those laws continue until such time as the first nation has adopted its own laws under Bill C-7. This avoids a gap in areas of financial administration law. This is the sole purpose of it.

Mr. Pat Martin: But it still seems to me that reference to the default code in item (c) complements it, even if the band had—

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): In G-15 there's no reference to a default code.

Mr. Pat Martin: In 3(c) it states “two years after the coming into force of section 4”. Section 4 is the default.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: If in fact a first nation passes its own law under Bill C-7, the financial administration bylaw under the Indian Act would cease to exist. If in fact the first nation chooses not to adopt a financial management code under Bill C-7 within the transition period, then they would be subject to the regulations under Bill C-7. The financial administration bylaw, which was passed under the Indian Act, would cease to apply and the regulations would instead apply to that first nation.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not going to get into a debate, but this is exactly my point. What if a first nations community could not or would not put their new codes into place within the two-year timeframe, and chose to carry on with a financial management code that didn't meet the standards of Bill C-7?

With the new codes or regulations, which haven't even been drafted yet, it's unclear what would happen in the transition period. By explicitly stating it, I think it gives further weight to a series of events we're not in favour of. I don't want this entered into by consensus now—even though I can argue it at a later date. I don't want to aid, abet, or assist something I'm not in favour of. This is why I object to G-15.

À (1055)

The Chair: Did you wish to add to the explanation, in case we can clear up something?

Mr. Pat Martin: Does what I said make any sense, or am I completely out...?

Mr. Paul Salembier: No, your point is clear.

Is there any further explanation the committee would like?

The Chair: Is it a situation where, when the band adopts codes, they fall into place and then, when they choose not to adopt them, this allows for the codes agreed by the department and for the default? Is this all that it is?

Mr. Paul Salembier: The purpose of Bill C-7 is to establish consistent standards across the country, or, if those standards are not going to be followed, to ensure that the membership of the first nation has had an opportunity to ratify the standard the first nation is going to adopt for itself. That second standard would be the financial management code, which they would adopt and ratify. But if they do not ratify that code, then the purpose of the bill is to set in place, as a default, a consistent standard of financial management for first nations across the country.

The Chair: I'm going to ask this. I think the codes that would be put in place for those in default would be reasonable and intelligent, and I can imagine that some first nations communities, rather than going through all the process, would say they'll take those--those default codes we will adopt as our own. Is that all this does--allow them to do that before the two years?

Mr. Paul Salembier: It does that, and it also provides that if there happens to be a financial management bylaw that did not accord with the code, that bylaw will cease to apply at the time the new code or the new default regulations apply.

The Chair: Because if they don't do it voluntarily--adopt these default codes--it will not happen within two years anyway. It will fall under the code and there's nothing to be said about it.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just for further clarity then, the financial administration codes by which they've always governed themselves to date--the codes that they have in place now--if they don't meet the standards of Bill C-7, they will cease to exist two years after the coming into force and effect of clause 4.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: That is correct.

Mr. Pat Martin: So that's really the substance of the whole objection and protest right across the country. This is the flashpoint.

The Chair: Well, then we won't deal with it, because it will be too much time on it.

Mr. Beynon, you have a comment on that.

Mr. Andrew Beynon: If I could just say this very fast, it might help.

Remember that the original subclause 37(1) in Bill C-7 as it's printed talks about any bylaw being deemed to be in effect, and then, at the end, it's not in effect to the extent that it conflicts with this act or code. So we were already there. We were already at the position that any bylaw, be it under sections 81, 85.1, 83--even financial administration--by subclause 37(1) under Bill C-7, as it was originally, that bylaw would cease to operate.

If you remember, in one of the proposed changes, the previous one, we drew section 83 out of subclause 37(1) so all that subclause 37(3) does is deal with the one particular case of section 83 that you need to deal with to keep the same rule, the original rule, that bylaws keep going unless they're inconsistent with this act, codes, or default regulations. So whether one agrees with the concept or not, it's at least the same concept as was originally in Bill C-7.

The Chair: That's what makes it technical.

Mr. Pat Martin: In that case, I trust in your judgment. If it doesn't add any more weight to something I currently disagree with, if it only states the exact same thing in a different way, then I have no objection.

The Chair: And you will have an opportunity with your researchers to verify it before we go to clause-by-clause.

So we're okay on G-15.

Á (1100)

On amendment G-16, I think Mr. Martin wants more explanation on that also.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay, should I move that first then?

The Chair: You don't need to move it.

Could we have an explanation on that? It could be helpful.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Subclause 43(2) of the bill replaces the definition of “council of the band” as a definition in the Indian Act with the new definition of “council” that is now in the First Nations Governance Act. Unfortunately, for our purposes, there are a number of references in other statutes to the expression “council of the band” as a defined term. Therefore we need to make sure that those references are changed to the new definition, so that later, when someone looks at a statute, they won't be directed to a definition that no longer exists.

The Chair: Definition only.

Are we okay with that?

Amendment G-17, explanation.

Mr. Paul Salembier: This is exactly the same kind of amendment as G-16.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I don't pretend to understand this currently, so I have to go by your word. Does this refer in any way to the fact that the FSIN and the province and the feds have been in negotiation for years for a framework agreement towards self-governance? Does this refer to that work at all? No, and neither would it if we talk about Manitoba and the framework agreement. This is not what we're talking about.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: This only refers to legislation that is currently enacted. Anything yet to come would be dealt with at a later date.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

The Chair: And this is not an amendment. This is an addition, because it's not in the bill, right?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: It's an additional itemization of other legislation.

The Chair: I want that to be clear.

So we're okay on amendment G-17?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not following completely here. I need a little more time to look at this one. So if you want to go ahead, we can come back shortly.

The Chair: We'll go with you.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Give me the explanation again, because I know it relates to places in Saskatchewan and my home province in Alberta. So what are we doing here?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: We're making sure that the reference in existing legislation to “band council” or “council of the band”, which is currently referenced to the Indian Act, is changed to reference the definition in the First Nations Governance Act. So it is a consequential amendment to the other legislation. There are no changes in the substance whatsoever.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: And likewise with the term “aboriginal government”...is that all fairly much the same there?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, exactly. There's a reference in the body of that definition to the definition of “council of the band”. So that change actually is being made in the body of that. So now we refer to “council” within the meaning of the First Nations Governance Act.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's also written down in the “council of the band” meaning in subclause 43(2) here.

Ms. Brenda Kustra: Yes. The words “aboriginal government” are part of the existing legislation, the existing Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, but the reference currently is now to the Indian Act, or to “council of the band”. If you continue to read the definition, it says that “aboriginal government” means an Indian, an Inuit, or a Métis government or the council of a band, and we need to change that. We need to change the “council of the band” within the meaning of the Indian Act to say a council of the band within the meaning of the First Nations Governance Act. So the only change is the reference from Indian Act to First Nations Governance Act.

The Chair: Mr. Beynon.

Mr. Andrew Beynon: I don't know if it may help to say that all of these changes are to make correct cross-references out of existing acts to what Bill C-7 will provide. In the future, with Manitoba negotiations or Saskatchewan negotiations, they may well make a change to what they call their government organization. If they change it from “band council” to “first nation” something, then when federal legislation is passed for that, that legislation will make sure that all the cross-references are put in place, when those negotiations are finished.

That's the same kind of thing that was done in the context of Nisga'a . When they terminated the band councils, they then changed all the cross-references to other acts. This is tracking the existing law.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Okay. Anything else on amendment G-17?

And for the members' benefit, there are only three more amendments. When we finish this we will resume our future business meeting until midnight, if you want to.

On amendment G-18, do we need an explanation? Let's give one anyway.

Mr. Paul Salembier: The existing section 4.1 of the Indian Act has in fact been changed by Bill C-7. The existing change to that section deletes references to provisions that will no longer be there after this bill comes into force. However, the existing section has a minor error in it that we are correcting.

The existing section talked about a person whose name is entered in a band list and who is entitled to be entered in a band list. What it should have said is “or is entitled”, because you could have a person who's entitled to be entered on a band list but who is not on a band list. We want them to have the benefit of that section.

The Chair: Protection.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can you say that one more time? The “and” as opposed to the “or”?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. Right now, it says “and”, so you would have to fulfil both conditions. You would have to be both on a band list and be entitled to be there in order to get the benefit of this section.

The original intent had always been that you either were on the band list or you could be a member of a first nation who was entitled to be on a band list and therefore to have Indian status, but you were not on the band list for one reason or another.

We want them to have the benefit of this section.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: In regard to what? Voting? I don't have my bill here with me, but clause 44 is pertaining to—

Mr. Paul Salembier: What this does is say that a number of provisions of the Indian Act, such as definitions of band, Indian moneys, mentally incompetent Indian, and a whole list of provisions where they refer to an “Indian”, are also to capture people who are entitled to be entered on a band list.

The Chair: Before he had to be on the list and entitled, and now it's one of the two? Of course.

Mr. Pat Martin: It was an error, though; it was an oversight that you put “and”, because if you're on the band list, surely you were entitled to be on the band list. It's kind of meaningless.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Sometimes they didn't.

Mr. Pat Martin: Exactly.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Sometimes they were entitled to be but weren't on the band list.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is it common, though, that there are people who are entitled to be on the band list by the Indian Act's definition and the band opposes or resists having them included on their band list?

Mr. Andrew Beynon: I suppose I would answer that by saying there are some people who fall into the category of being entitled to be on the list but either they haven't yet filed their application or it hasn't finished being processed. It's not necessarily that the band objects; it's just that they haven't done it yet. By putting in the “or”, you capture both types of people.

They have to qualify under the terms of the Indian Act, though, either as having been registered or as being entitled to be registered. If they're not entitled to be registered under the Indian Act, then they wouldn't fit either one.

Mr. Pat Martin: Would you see this as having the effect of unilaterally expanding the membership list of bands? I'm thinking of Bill C-31 people, for instance, who have sometimes had a problem getting benefits from their home community. Is that why this was put in place, so that for those bands that may be resisting having their lists expanded—maybe because in their minds they don't have the resources—this list will grow whether they like it or not? Is that the effect?

Mr. Andrew Beynon: I think the fair answer to that is that this provision wouldn't change who is entitled to be an Indian. You still deal with the rest of the Indian Act, which tells you the answer to those questions. The question as to who is entitled to be an Indian and whether the band has good objections to that or not is still debated under those sections, not this proposed section.

The Chair: Can I conclude that having had “and” until today or into the future, there were people who were mistreated or treated unfairly because of that “and”? Have you been applying it that way?

Á (1110)

Mr. Paul Salembier: No. I think so far it has always been applied as though the “and” really said “or”.

The Chair: Did you hear that, Mr. Martin? The “and” is there presently, and I'm saying I therefore assume some people were treated unfairly because of the “and”. And the answer is, we have always treated it as “or”; otherwise it would be unfair for the applicant.

Mr. Pat Martin: But it's been brought to my attention that some bands think it's unfair being obliged to divide the pie even further to include people they may not accept. The membership should be up to the band--that's their argument. I'm not making the argument here.

By this language it's been taken out of their hands. Anybody the government thinks is an Indian and a member of that band is now going to be on that band list.

Mr. Paul Salembier: With respect, I don't think this actually affects who is on the band list. This only affects who is considered to be an Indian for the purposes of the listed sections of the Indian Act. It does not, just to clarify, actually require a first nation to put that person on their band list.

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, if these are debatable motions, as presented today, I don't want to hold the committee up. But—

The Chair: Yes, and yours also.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, but if Mr. Martin wants it—it's a very minor point—we could withdraw.

The Chair: It's been made clear: there's no problem; he can withdraw it on his own.

Are you okay with this?

Mr. Pat Martin: I don't want it withdrawn unnecessarily. If you can convince me it's a benign sort of move.... My only fear is that in the future some band will have their list extended by a couple of hundred people they themselves didn't accept as members of their band. Is that a justifiable fear stemming from this change?

The Chair: Will this have the effect of increasing the list of a particular band or will it have the effect of identifying the applicant as qualifying?

Mr. Paul Salembier: It will not have the effect of increasing the band membership list of any particular first nation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Will it have the effect of making that person now eligible for benefits stemming from being an Indian?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: No. It does not change the entitlement provision.

Mr. Pat Martin: Then I don't have a problem with it.

The Chair: So we're okay on G-18, Mr. Vellacott?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

The Chair: G-19.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Why are we not repealing section 93 any more, by way of the amendment?

Mr. Paul Salembier: The fear was that if we repealed section 93, which prohibits removal of certain resources from reserve, in the interval between when that section is repealed and when a first nation might decide under clauses 16 or 17 to pass its own law prohibiting that removal, there would be no law, there would be no prohibition. We wouldn't therefore be able to enforce penalties for someone who does remove these resources without the approval of the first nation.

So if the first nation decides not to pass a law prohibiting removal of resources, there will still be, in the background, available section 93 to prosecute someone who does take resources in a manner that's not authorized.

Mr. Pat Martin: I was wondering where we got section 93 from. We're on G-19, and the change is--

Á (1115)

Mr. Paul Salembier: The existing clause 57 does repeal section 93, and we want to make sure there's no legislative vacuum in order to maintain protection for resources on reserve. However, if I could refer you to subclause 17(5), which we just discussed here, it provides that when a first nation does pass its own law, their law will displace section 93.

So this is just to cover off any interval between the time of repeal and when they might pass their own law.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This is on reserve specifically? It's not lands under dispute or anything like that?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Right.

The Chair: Are you okay?

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm looking at G-18 and I thought I understood where it was, but--

The Chair: G-18 is done. We're on G-19. Do you have a question on G-19, Mr. Finlay?

Mr. John Finlay: No, G-19 I can understand.

The Chair: Are we okay with G-19?

Opposition, I really look towards your side when I ask that.

We'll move to G-20. Do we have an explanation?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. This is exactly the same as the other consequential amendments we discussed earlier relating to the definition of “council of a band” in the Indian Act. This substitutes the correct reference.

The Chair: I missed that, but are there any questions?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand that this is the same as other references, and I should have asked it then, but how would we arrive at that change?

I've heard it raised by first nations witnesses in hearings that they prefer to be called the council of first nations, but is there broad consensus around the country that this is the terminology they'd like to see used in the modern context?

Mr. Paul Salembier: The intent here is not to change the nomenclature, the manner in which councils are referred to either as band or first nation.

Mr. Andrew Beynon: If I may add, Mr. Martin is right that there is an interesting debate here, or perhaps rather I would call it perspective. Some communities want to be known as first nations.

In the preamble of Bill C-7 it provides in part, in the middle:

Whereas some bands refer to themselves as first nations while others refer to themselves as communities within first nations;

That was an attempt in the preamble to leave open the nomenclature that various groups use, because sometimes people say that a band is a first nation and sometimes they say it's a larger group.

So we're trying not to deal with that issue in Bill C-7 and just speak to the regular council of the band.

The Chair: On G-20 we're okay?

On G-21, do we need an explanation?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Probably it wouldn't hurt.

The Chair: Let's have it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What's the effect of the change here?

Mr. Paul Salembier: There are two effects of the change.

First, because today we are adding additional provisions to the act, as subclause 59(1) originally read, we would have had to go in and add all of those numbers, and then on clause-by-clause, if other provisions were added, we would have to be constantly updating this section. So we've gone to general wording to say that all provisions, other than the ones that are mentioned in subclause 59(2), “come into force on a day or days”.... Again, the reason we've added “day or days” is to give the government flexibility to bring portions of the act in at times that are appropriate to that portion of the act.

Again, it had always been the intention, but this provides sufficient flexibility to make sure that the act will operate in the way it was intended.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What are the subsections 43(2) and (4) you're referencing back here?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Those are sections I mentioned earlier. They deal with the election provisions of the Indian Act. Subsection (2) repeals those two years after the day on which subsection (4) of the act comes into force. That will be the very day on which the leadership selection fallback regulations come into force. At that time, the new regime will be in place, and that's when we will repeal the provisions of the Indian Act relating to the old election regime.

The Chair: I'm advised to ask a question. I think I understand the question.

The provisions of this bill--and it's under 21--will any of these take effect immediately on royal assent, or will they be included with orders in council and the other normal provisions?

Á (1120)

Mr. Paul Salembier: Clause 59 will take effect on royal assent.

The Chair: Does that make it a big deal? I don't know. I'm asking.

Mr. Martin, do you have a question on that, or Mr. Crête, on that or something? Mr. Martin first.

Mr. Pat Martin: My question is on G-20. It's on the issue that you raised, Mr. Chair, the coming into effect. This seems to give some flexibility, that on or around the time the government will exercise its prerogative to enforce default codes.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: If clause 59 is immediately on royal assent, what are the sanctions associated with not complying or refusing to come under the new codes? I think this is relevant. What does the government contemplate doing about it if a band won't cooperate with the imposition of the order that these new codes of governance now apply? What are the sanctions?

Mr. Andrew Beynon: Maybe I can answer that.

This would become the federal law when these provisions are in place. What happens in terms of complying with the law, as I think I said on a previous appearance, is that it is likely mostly up to individual band members concerned to raise concerns in court or perhaps to go to the redress mechanism to complain if their band councils aren't complying with what is the law.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I could add to that.

For example, if a council declares itself elected, or becomes supposedly elected not in accordance with the law, then they would have no standing at law, and that obviously could affect any actions taken by that council, including contracts entered into by the council and laws passed by the council. If they ignore the law and simply act outside of the law on their own, it would be very much as if they did so today. If they ignore the law and act outside of the law on their own today, then the legitimacy of the council would be called into question and the legitimacy of everything they did.

Mr. Pat Martin: But would the old order of government still continue to apply if nobody complained? Say there was unanimous consent of that band and everybody liked the old system and acknowledged and gave legitimacy to the.... I guess they couldn't give legal legitimacy to the current band if.... Do you understand where I'm coming from?

What if it's not complaint-driven and nobody complains?

Ms. Brenda Kustra: The original law would be ratified by the band as a whole, and the law would have to comply with the minimum standards that were identified in the bill.

Mr. Pat Martin: But if it doesn't say the current practice doesn't meet the standards of the bill, two years go by and they still don't meet the current standards but nobody files a complaint, what is the power of law to enforce this?

Mr. Paul Salembier: There are no sanctions provided for. If there's consensus within the first nation community on their method of leadership selection, under subclause 5(2) of the bill they can ratify their customary leadership selection practices and continue using those practices under this bill.

Paragraph 5(2)(b) gives them the opportunity to ratify what they're doing now, even if it doesn't touch on all of the subject matter set out in subclause 5(1).

Mr. Pat Martin: Then why doesn't any band that has any reservations about this bill quickly ratify their current practice? We heard about one practice from an aboriginal elder woman who said that in her community women weren't even allowed to run for chief or council and they have objected, but then she said the men weren't allowed to vote. Surely that situation doesn't fit into the standards here. So what about in that community?

Á (1125)

The Chair: We're getting into debate, so I'll ask--

Mr. Pat Martin: I need to know--

The Chair: You may ask a simple question.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have enough reservations about G- 21 that I guess I can't give consent.

The Chair: So we're pulling that.

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like a clarification, Mr. Chair. You have asked when the bill would come into force, and Mr. Salembier said that section 59 wold be in force on royal assent, but that the provisions of the act wold come into force by order-in-council. There is a difference between the two.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was simply going to withdraw my motion on amendment G-21, which you have already done. But we'd like to certainly thank the committee--

The Chair: Don't go too fast.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think you've covered all except for four.

The Chair: There are still two, and I'm going to make another attempt at them. We had other explanations, and if there's a solution we'll try it.

The only three that have been pulled are G-12, G-13, and G-21. I just want to go back to G-12 and ask if there's a possibility of getting an explanation that might get us through this one. If not, we don't need to debate it and can just say no.

Is there a simple explanation that could clarify this so members would feel comfortable?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. G-12 is simply a transitional provision to avoid conflict--it's as simple as that--between the old regime and the new.

The Chair: I'm told you're looking at the wrong one.

Mr. Paul Salembier: I'm sorry. Are we talking about clause 33?

The Chair: We're on G-12, clause 33.

Mr. Andrew Beynon: Maybe the simplest suggestion is this. Clause 33 in Bill C-7, as it is currently drafted, just says in very broad terms “the Governor in Council may make other regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act”, so it is not a precise provision that tells you exactly what kinds of regulations would be carried out.

Somebody might challenge the Governor in Council's making of a future regulation pursuant to that general kind of power by saying that the regulation is interesting, but it's not really for carrying out “the purposes and provisions of this Act”. It's a vague, basket kind of clause that doesn't give a very strong signal from the government as to what regulations are intended under clause 33.

This amendment lists specifically what the topics of other regulations would be, and then that's it. It doesn't have the open-ended generality of “regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act”. So by making this amendment, together with the other provisions dealing with regulations, it becomes very clear to first nations and their legal advisers what is the scope of regulations that are possible under Bill C-7.

That's not true today, because as I say, clause 33 is quite wide open, talking about other regulations to carry out the provisions of this act, when nobody knows what those are yet.

The Chair: Do we feel more comfortable or not?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm not a lawyer--or a son of a lawyer, as they say--and who am I to argue on behalf of the government's position, but it would seem to me and to my colleague Mr. Martin that this would actually restrict, instead of a broad, open approach that the minister.... The Governor in Council could set all kinds of regulations, or more regulations than would be narrowly defined by this. I would almost think, at least in terms of my reassurance, it doesn't allow an open-ended approach.

The Chair: Do you have concerns about it?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I don't. I think it's good, and I think it should reassure him as well.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Martin, are you reassured?

Mr. Pat Martin: No, I'm still confused, frankly.

The Chair: Is there anything we need to go further on this? If we don't do it today, we'll have to do it when we go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand that.

The Chair: I mean, do we need to get more information? We can get it and still pull this clause, don't worry about that. If we can get information to help us in the future, let's go for it.

Mr. Pat Martin: Subclause 10(3) is one of the most controversial in the bill. I would say 80% or 90% of presenters either cited it specifically or made reference to it.

Perhaps it's just an abundance of caution, but I don't want to be on the record as supporting this interpretation of it until we have time to analyze it further, and compare the amendments we draw to the language. The amendments aren't even drawn yet, because we haven't even finished hearing testimony yet, so it's hard for me to agree to a government amendment before we've even crafted our own amendments on this.

The Chair: To make things clearer, this doesn't have to mean that you support it. It means you're allowing it to be our basis of discussion when we go to clause-by-clause.

We had discussions--I'm being coached here, too--in which it was said that what we're doing now is not acceptable because if we reprint what we did this morning, it becomes the legal document, and then we have two legal documents. In respone, I said that I just wanted somebody to type what we did this morning so it can be our working paper for when we go to clause-by-clause. We are not doing clause-by-clause, we're just developing a foundation for discussion; the bill is still what we have to amend.

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I think this clause sets up some kind of a parameter. It deals with the way some thing should be done and it is not only technical in nature. It creates some kind of a funnel leading to the desired result. That's how I understand what Mr. Martin just said. This seems to me more of a debatable amendment than a technical one.

The Chair: Do we withdraw it?

Mr. Beynon.

[English]

Mr. Andrew Beynon: If it would help, I acknowledge what Mr. Martin has said. Clause 10 has attracted a lot of attention because of the power of the minister with respect to financial intervention. I would note for your consideration, so you can look at this more, that clause 10 has within it a description of what the minister's authority is in terms of financial intervention. This new section would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations--cabinet as a whole--which would give an indication of what is the scope of the minister's discretion.

In fact, it is, I think, at least addressing clause 10, currently giving a broad power to the minister in terms of financial intervention, and this would make it clear that he has to do that in accordance with regulations set by cabinet; it's not just the minister by himself, for what that's worth.

The Chair: Okay, do we still withdraw it? Withdrawn.

About amendment G-13, is there a possibility there?

We understand amendment G-12 better because of the explanation. Let's ask for an explanation on amendment G-13. Is it the same thing?

Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. It's very much a transitional to make sure that there is no conflict between a band leadership selection code and the existing laws in the Indian Act and in the Indian Act regulations regarding selection of leadership. In fact, it clarifies that the band code will have priority, once they adopt a leadership selection code. Even if those provisions of the act have not yet been repealed--and they may not be--their code will apply.

The Chair: Do we pull it?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. So we've done everything except amendments G-12, G-13, and G-21.

To the parliamentary secretary, when we do the clause-by-clause, we will need to have these amendments there physically, to be moved and seconded, so that we can either approve or deny clauses as amended. Okay?

Now you may thank whoever you want.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I only want to thank because it gives us an opportunity, when we come back to look at clause-by-clause, to have a written form in front of us and not be shuffling through a great number of papers that certainly makes it more difficult to consider what the presentation is on behalf of the government. So it was for--hopefully--the benefit of us all.

Mr. Martin, I guess you disagreed with three of the amendments, but at least 18 of them will be part of the paperwork, so that you won't be dealing with multiple copies.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will have a document ready for members by Tuesday. All it will be, really, is retyping the act with the consensus that you have demonstrated this morning. The legal document will still be the act that came to us from the House.

The document that will be typed for us, just for the committee, will be the working document, and we will still need to move the amendments that we agreed to this morning and seconded, and if you want debate, you'll have debate.

We will behave as though we haven't had this meeting. This is just bringing us together, knowing that we can go faster on the things we all agree on. Is there a problem here?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess my question would be that what's available on the Internet and other public sources will still be the original. It won't be taking into account--

The Chair: This will not go on the Internet.

What we agreed on consensus this morning...and I'd ask the clerk to listen, because they're going to be producing it. What will be produced for us is a document to reflect what you agreed to this morning, for your benefit only, members of the committee. Of course, the department should get one, too, and everybody around this table, but not outside.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That was my question, precisely. If this was an in camera meeting, then, does it tie that...?

The Chair: This is not an in camera meeting. At 10 o'clock we went to a public meeting. We will be resuming in camera after this.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, so then this does not tie the hands of members, should they desire to share it or get a legal opinion, or with the AFN, or FSIN, or whatever? They can share this update.

The Chair: Even if we banned it, it's going to happen anyway.

No problem. It's open, and there are no games being played here. There's nothing--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. I understand that.

The Chair: Nobody there asked for this exercise. I'm the one who asked for it.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So this, here today, is in the Hansard, then?

The Chair: Yes, it's in the Hansard.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's all in the Hansard. So people outside who are reviewing and following the process will have to get today's Hansard to get updated and current.

The Chair: Yes, and what you're saying is being recorded, and also for me, and I'll say it now: Anybody reading the Hansard should not take what was done here today, discussed and agreed to on consensus, as having been done. We had a discussion this morning; that's it.

It's not to be interpreted as having been amended. The document, the legal document, is still the bill that you have in your possession, and it will continue to be until we go to clause-by-clause officially and we amend these. What we did this morning will be amended officially at that time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So in effect these will all have to come forward on that day again, every one of these.

The Chair: Absolutely. They haven't been voted on. We can't send it back to the House. And they can be amended again, and they can be sent back to the way they were before.

Is there anything else? Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just on a practical note so that we can retain the good work that was done today, if we were even to put a little signalling device in place that a particular amendment has received informal approval, it might help jog our memories that we've actually talked about this. We need something to distinguish.... Even though formally we're looking at everything for the first time when we come to clause-by-clause, it would be useful just to remind ourselves that on these particular ones we've already had this discussion. If we could just put—

The Chair: You will have that document Tuesday.

Mr. John Godfrey: No, I'm just thinking that when we come to clause-by-clause; when we actually....

The Chair: I will draw to your attention.... I'll be given an amendment; it will have to be moved and seconded; we'll have to vote on the amendment. After that, we'll have to vote for the main clause as amended. Even if we vote on the amendments you've reached consensus on, you can still present other amendments on that clause or on that amendment.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I understand, Mr. Godfrey is saying that a starring of these today will remind us that we don't need lengthy discussion again, because the department will have to bring these forward again, will they not? They'll have to bring all these amendments forward.

The Chair: The parliamentary secretary will introduce them. They will be at the table to explain. If we have long discussions on all of these, this is the last time we will do this, because my intent is to do exactly what you're saying: it's to save work later.

Mr. Dromisky.

Á (1140)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: The most important thing that happened this morning is that we were introduced to amendments that we hope are going to help give us a better understanding of the entire bill. None of them, of course, has been passed here or approved, not even approved in principle or in any of their form. I don't care whether you put in the document that you're going to present to us on Tuesday 67 stars beside it and cover them in red, blue, and white stripes. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

What I'm saying is I have learned something here today regarding some of these amendments in some areas of concern; therefore I have a chance to think about them and analyze them and relate them to other concerns. Maybe having gone through them and said “okay” today could lead to a half-hour discussion on Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday, or Friday, or any other day. I don't want anyone to jump to a conclusion that just because we said okay today, we're not going to have a discussion on these in the future.

The Chair: Definitely not.

We got this bill after first reading. We can either do a serious job, which is what we're doing; or we could just send it back to the House and let the House do it, and we'd be there for a long time, voting for three days straight.

In all the good work we do, we're saving work in the House; but anything we do, they can undo. I think the exercise today was beneficial.

Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Before you adjourn the meeting and go into the closed part, could I ask that you give us a five-minute break?

The Chair: The problem is that when I give five-minute breaks, they take fifteen minutes.

Do you want a five-minute break?

We'll take a five-minute break when we adjourn.

Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to come back to Mr. Godfrey's proposal. If I understood correctly, we will have to ensure that the proposed amendments mention that certain clauses were not considered problematic here. It has to be mentioned on the formal document, otherwise we might start a debate on things we agreed were not an issue.

The Chair: You will all have a document prepared by the clerk, that will reflect the changes made today. This document could even only deal with the clauses we addressed today, which would solve the problem. You will have a document that deals with what we have done today. Yes, we will do what you wish.

[English]

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: What form will this document be in? Will it look like what we have now?

The Chair: The one I've asked them to produce will probably look like this, but it will have the new wording.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to make sure about this in camera and out of camera, I want to ensure that when we go back in camera we're going to be discussing both the motions that have been put forward. That's one thing. Will we also be discussing our future work plan, or is that something that should be discussed now?

The Chair: That's what we're meeting for. We ran out of time because someone took most of the half-hour, but we'll have as much time as you want now. We're resuming in five minutes.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]