AANO Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met at 3:36 p.m. this day, in Room 371, West Block, the Chair, Barry Devolin, presiding.

The Chair called Clause 1.

“Rights Act is replaced by the following:

67. (1) In the interpretation and application of this Act, it shall be taken into consideration that a First Nation government is entitled to

(a) provide programs and services exclusively or on a preferential basis to the members of the First Nation;

(b) give preference to the members of the First Nation in the training and hiring of employees and contractors;

(c) give preference to the members of the First Nation in the allocation of land, resources or other economic benefits;

(d) give preferential or exclusive treatment to the members of the First Nation in matters relating to the exercise of cultural, spiritual or other traditional practices or activities;

(e) give preferential or exclusive treatment to the members of the First Nation in matters of concern and priority to the community, where reasonably necessary; and

(f) to consider and apply indigenous legal traditions and customary laws in a manner consistent with the principles of equality and justice.

(2) In this section, “First Nation government” means a “council of the band” as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-21 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by repealing section 67 of that Act. The repeal of section 67 removes an exception in its application with regard to the Indian Act. This amendment proposes to not repeal section 67 but rather replace it with a new framework. This new framework would create many conditions and exemptions similar to those contained in the Indian Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

‘An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.’

In the opinion of the Chair, the introduction of this new framework is contrary to the principle of Bill C-21 and is therefore inadmissible.

Whereupon, Jean Crowder appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Harold Albrecht, Rod Bruinooge, Brian Storseth, Chris Warkentin — 4; NAYS: Jean Crowder, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Tina Keeper, Marc Lemay, Anita Neville, Christian Ouellet — 6.

Debate arose on the amendment of Jean Crowder.

At 5:30 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.