CHPC 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.
Minutes of Proceedings
Liberal
- Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary — Non-Voting Member
Conservative
It was agreed, — That a proposed budget in the amount of $39,900, for the study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be adopted.
Cathy McLeod moved, — That the bill be adopted without amendment.
At 4:04 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 4:13 p.m., the sitting resumed.
The Chair ruled the proposed motion inadmissible as it would require unanimous consent.
Pierre Nantel moved, — That the Committee do now adjourn.
The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
On Clause 2,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 3 with the following:“Commissioner means the Indigenous Commissioner of Indigenous”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 7 with the following:“12 (1) There is established an office, to be known as the Office of the Indigenous Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, consisting of the Commissioner and three Indigenous directors.”
That Bill C-91, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 7 with the following:
“is to appoint an Indigenous Commissioner of Indigenous Languages to”
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:
“ment or other entity, including a traditional hereditary government of unceded lands that is not provided for under the Indian Act, that is authorized to act on behalf of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“ment or other entity, including a Metis Settlement and the Métis Settlements General Council, that is authorized to act on behalf of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of David Yurdiga and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 2 carried on division.
Clause 3 carried on division.
Clause 4 carried on division.
On Clause 5,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:“guages, regardless of how the users of those languages communicate;”
Debate arose thereon.
Gordie Hogg moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “guages,” and substituting the following:
“including Indigenous sign languages;”
The question was put on the subamendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(i) assess the distinct status of Indigenous languages,”
Debate arose thereon.
Gordie Hogg moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “distinct status of ” with the words “status of distinct”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 5, be amended
(a) by replacing line 24 on page 4 with the following:
“(ii) plan initiatives and activities for building proficiency and restoring and”
(b) by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 4 with the following:
“tural activities to create new speakers, including language nests, immersion programs, schools and mentor-apprentice programs,”
(c) by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following:
“(g) implement Articles 13 and 14 of the”
Debate arose thereon.
Pierre Nantel moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “Articles 13 and 14” with the words “Articles 13, 14 and 16”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 3.
Gordie Hogg moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “tural activities” and substituting the following:
“— including language nest, mentorship and immersion programs — to increase the number of new speakers of Indigenous languages,”
The question was put on the subamendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs (a) and (c).
The question was put on the subamendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 2.
“maintaining fluency and proficiency in Indigenous languages,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
By unanimous consent, Clause 5 was allowed to stand.
On New Clause 9.1,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hunter Tootoo for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 6 the following new clause:
“9.1 Taking into account the distinctiveness, aspirations and circumstances of each of the peoples referred to in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and in a manner consistent with the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces and of Indigenous governing bodies and the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Minister may enter into an agreement or arrangement with a provincial government or an Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body to further the promotion and use of Indigenous languages or to establish the status of an Indigenous language and the rights and privileges as to its use – in a province or a region – in all institutions of the provincial government or of the Indigenous government or Indigenous governing body, as the case may be.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hunter Tootoo and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Pierre Nantel — 1;
NAYS: Randy Boissonnault, Pierre Breton, Anju Dhillon, Gordie Hogg, Wayne Long, Cathy McLeod, Martin Shields, David Yurdiga — 8.
The Chair ruled that the following two (2) amendments were consequential to the previous amendment and therefore they were also negatived:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 5 with the following:“or arrangements referred to in sections 8, 9 and 9.1;”
That Bill C-91, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 6 with the following:
“10 For greater certainty, sections 8, 9 and 9.1, and any agree-”
By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 5 previously stood.
At 5:45 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:52 p.m., the sitting resumed.
(a) by replacing line 11 on page 5 with the following:
“(e) facilitate cooperation with provincial and territorial govern-”
(b) by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following:
“(g) contribute to the implementation of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“entities in a manner consistent with the rights of Indigenous peoples and the powers and jurisdictions of Indigenous governing bodies and of the provinces and territories;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(e.1) facilitate meaningful opportunities for Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous organizations to collaborate in policy development related to the implementation of this Act;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 5, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 6,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 5 with the following:“6 The Government of Canada affirms that the rights”
Debate arose thereon.
At 5:59 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 7:48 p.m., the sitting resumed.
“6 The Government of Canada affirms that the rights”
The debate continued.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“6 The Government of Canada recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Cathy McLeod and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Cathy McLeod, Martin Shields, David Yurdiga — 3;
NAYS: Randy Boissonnault, Pierre Breton, Anju Dhillon, Gordie Hogg, Wayne Long, Pierre Nantel — 6.
“(2) For greater certainty, the rights referred to in subsection (1) include the following rights of Indigenous peoples:
(a) the right to reclaim, revitalize, use, develop, strengthen and transmit to present and future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures;
(b) the right to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons;
(c) the right to establish their own media in their own languages;
(d) the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture; and
(e) the right to enter into agreements with the Government of Canada or with provincial governments, including agreements to further the purposes of this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 6 carried on division.
On new Clause 6.1,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 5 the following new clauses:“Additional Specific Rights Related to Inuktut
6.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 6.2 to 6.5.
Inuit regions means Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, the Nunavut Settlement Area as defined in section 2 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region referred to in the definition Agreement in section 2 of the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act. (régions inuites)
Inuktut means the Indigenous language spoken by Inuit in Canada and includes Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuttut and Inuvialuktun, as well as related dialects and subdialects. (inuktut)
(2) This section and sections 6.2 to 6.5 are to be interpreted in accordance with the following principles:
(a) Inuit Nunangat, being the Inuit homeland in Canada, is a distinct cultural, political, and geographical area composed of the Inuit regions;
(b) Inuktut is an original language of Canada, the original language of Inuit Nunangat and the first language spoken by the majority of Inuit Nunangat residents;
(c) effective public administration in Inuit Nunangat is best achieved through the delivery of programs and services in the first language of the recipients of those programs and services; and
(d) speakers of Inuktut are entitled to programs and services in Inuktut the quality and accessibility of which are comparable to programs and services offered to Canadians living in parts or regions of Canada where English or French predominates.
6.2 (1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that – in close collaboration with Inuit governing bodies and in a manner consistent with the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces – the necessary measures are taken to sustain and support the status of Inuktut as an original language of Canada, including by ensuring that federal programs and services are delivered in Inuktut in Inuit Nunangat, to the extent that demand requires and capacity allows, and, outside Inuit Nunangat, where the numbers of speakers of Inuktut warrant its use.
(2) The programs and services referred to in subsection (1) include programs and services in relation to education, health and the administration of justice.
(3) The Government of Canada must ensure that the funding it provides in relation to its commitment under subsection (1)
(a) is adequate, sustainable and long-term;
(b) meets the specific needs of Inuit;
(c) supports the objective of advancing Inuktut as the primary language spoken by every sector of society in Inuit Nunangat; and
(d) is equal, on a per capita basis, to the funding provided to English or French linguistic minority populations in Inuit Nunangat and other parts of Canada.
6.3 (1) The Government of Canada must ensure that the composition of the workforce of its federal institutions that is located in Inuit Nunangat reflects – at all levels of the workforce in each institution – the presence of its Inuktut-speaking community.
(2) Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that work environments in Inuit Nunangat support, accommodate and encourage the use of Inuktut by its officers and employees, including by making available opportunities for Inuktut language training.
6.4 The Government of Canada must, within 12 months after the day on which this section comes into force, enter into agreements with Inuit governing bodies that set out the levels of funding that are to be provided in relation to Inuktut for a period that is at least five years from the day on which each agreement is entered into.
6.5 In any agreement that it enters into with a provincial government in relation to Inuktut, including a funding agreement, the Government of Canada must include as a party to the agreement an Inuit organization that represents the interests of the residents of Inuit Nunangat.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
On Clause 7,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 5 with the following:“7 The Minister must, in consultation with diverse Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and diverse Indigenous organizations, establish a national strategy for Indigenous languages that is comparable to strategies developed in respect of Canada's official languages and that provides for the levels of funding for Indigenous languages.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“7 The Minister must consult with a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations in order to meet the ob-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 7, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 8,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 6 with the following:
“8 The Minister may cooperate with the Department of Indigenous Services Canada, provincial govern-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
(a) replacing line 1 on page 6 with the following:
“8 The Minister may cooperate with provincial or territorial govern-”
(b) replacing lines 7 to 10 on page 6 with the following:
“Canada in a manner consistent with the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the powers and jurisdictions of Indigenous governing bodies and of the provinces and territories.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 8, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 9,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 9, be amended by(a) replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 6 with the following:
“in a manner consistent with the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the powers and jurisdictions of Indigenous governing bodies and of the provinces and territories, the Minister”
(b) replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following:
“with a provincial or territorial government, an Indigenous government”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 9, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 10,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 6 with the following:“ment of Canada or the government of a province or territory, a”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 10, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 11 carried on division.
Clause 12 carried on division.
On Clause 13,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 15 to 17 on page 7 with the following:“the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations, the Governor in Council”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 13, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 13.1,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 7 the following:“13.1 The Minister may establish a committee to provide the Minister with advice on the appointment of the Commissioner.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 14 carried on division.
On Clause 15,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 31 to 33 on page 7 with the following:“made after the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 15, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 16,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 2 to 4 on page 8 with the following:“the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations, the Governor in Council”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
“(2) Before making recommendations under subsection (1), the Minister must seek comments in order to ensure that the Governor in Council appoints persons who have the ability to represent the interests of First Nations, the Inuit and the Métis.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 16, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 17 carried on division.
On Clause 18,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 8 with the following:“18 The Commissioner and directors are to be appointed to hold office on a full-time basis.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 18, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive carried severally.
On Clause 23,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 9 with the following:
“(b) support the efforts of Indigenous peoples, including in their research and assessments, to re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(e) support Indigenous language education and re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
“provincial and territorial governments.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 23, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 24,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 10 with the following:
“those languages or identifying measures to build proficiency and restore and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“maintain fluency and proficiency in those languages.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 10 with the following:
“(1)(b) may take into account a community assessment, with the consent of the Indigenous community in respect of which the assessment was undertaken, as well as other things.
(2.1) The Office must keep the Indigenous community informed of the progress of any research or studies that it undertakes under subsection (1), must recognize the community’s contributions in its final report and must provide it with a copy.”
Debate arose thereon.
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word “undertaken”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Cathy McLeod and it was agreed to.
At 8:31 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 8:38 p.m., the sitting resumed.
By unanimous consent, Clause 24 was allowed to stand.
On Clause 25,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following:“(c) conduct research and studies and community assessments in respect of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 25, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 10 the following:
“(c.1) promote and assist research and scholarship, collect, store and update data, archive collections, and facilitate knowledge sharing among Indigenous groups in respect of the language;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
“cial or territorial governments to establish culturally appropriate”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in Clause 25, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 10 the following:
“(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be construed as preventing an Indigenous community or an Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body from
(a) establishing and registering their own marks under the Trade-marks Act and authorizing and regulating their use subject to that Act; or
(b) licensing, selling or otherwise making available any patent, copyright, industrial design, trade-mark or other similar property right that it holds, controls or administers.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 25, as amended, carried.
Clause 26 carried on division.
On Clause 27,
Pierre Nantel moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 11 with the following:“complaint, filed by any individual or organization, respecting any matter referred”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 27 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 28 to 42 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 43,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 43, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 16 the following:“(0.a) a list of the research and studies undertaken under subsection 24(1);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 43, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 44 carried on division.
On Clause 45,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 2 and 3 on page 17 with the following:“fice, a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organiza-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
“(a.1) respecting procedures for consultations required under this Act as well as for the negotiation of agreements or arrangements under sections 8 and 9;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
Clause 45, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 45.1,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 23 on page 17 the following:“45.1 The Minister must ensure that Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous organizations are afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate in policy development leading to the making of regulations under section 45.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 49,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91, in Clause 49, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 18 the following:“(2.1) Before submitting the report to the Minister, the person or body that conducts the review must consult with a variety of Indigenous governments and other Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of Indigenous organizations concerning the conclusions and recommendations that should be included in the report.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 49, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 49.1,
Gordie Hogg moved, — That Bill C-91 be amended by adding after line 25 on page 18 the following:“Parliamentary Review
49.1 As soon as feasible after the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force and after each subsequent fifth anniversary, a review of this Act and of its administration and operation is to be commenced by a committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 50 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, the Committee reverted to Clause 24 previously stood.
“(3) The Office must make the results of any research or study referred to in subsection (1) available to any Indigenous community, Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body or Indigenous organization that contributed to that research or study. The Office may also make any document used in or produced for that research or study available to that Indigenous community, Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body or Indigenous organization.
(4) The Office must authorize the Indigenous community, Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body or Indigenous organization to copy or otherwise use the research or studies referred to in subsection (1) free of charge for the purpose of reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining or strengthening Indigenous languages. The Office may also authorize any document used in or produced for that research or study to be copied or otherwise used by that Indigenous community, Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body or Indigenous organization free of charge, for that purpose.”
Debate arose thereon.
Wayne Long moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “The Office may” in paragraphs (3) and (4) with the words “The Office must”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Wayne Long and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The question was put on the amendment of Gordie Hogg, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
Clause 24, as amended, carried on division.
Clause 1, Short Title, carried.
On Preamble,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-91, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 1 with the following:
“guages used in the lands that are now in Canada”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to.
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following:
“forced assimilation, forced relocation during the Sixties Scoop and residential”
(b) by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the following:
“languages and the destruction of Indigenous culture;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”
Whereupon, Pierre Nantel appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Gordie Hogg moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “forced assimilation, forced relocation, during” with the words “assimilation, forced relocation, the”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Gordie Hogg and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
At 9:12 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 9:13 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Randy Boissonnault moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraph (b).
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Randy Boissonnault and it was agreed to.
The question was put on the amendment of Pierre Nantel, as amended, and it was agreed to.
“Whereas it is important to recognize the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”
Whereupon, Pierre Nantel appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
“And whereas the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognize that particular attention must be paid to the rights and special needs of Indigenous elders, women, youth, children, gender-diverse persons, two-spirit persons and persons with disabilities;”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”
The Preamble, as amended, carried on division.
The Title carried on division.
The Bill, as amended, carried on division.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-91, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
At 9:22 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.