INAN 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
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
NDP
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on new Clause 2.1 of the Bill.
The committee resumed consideration of the subamendment of Jamie Schmale, — That the amendment be amended by replacing, in the English version, the word “peoples” with the word “individuals”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Jamie Schmale and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout — 2;
NAYS : Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Michael V. McLeod, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 7.
“2.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the right to self-determination of the Métis peoples, which includes the inherent right of self-government.”
The question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 4;
NAYS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7.
On Clause 3,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-53, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following:“(2) A treaty may not deal with any matter relating to land.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Arnold Viersen appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7;
NAYS: Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 4.
Clause 3 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
Jamie Schmale moved, —
That the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs report to the House that it:
- recognizes that the Chiefs of Ontario and the Attawapiskat First Nation are taking the federal government to court over the carbon tax;
- recognizes the statement of the Chiefs of Ontario said the carbon tax is “discriminatory”, “anti-reconciliatory” and “has a disproportionate impact on First Nations”;
- recognizes that the Liberal Government “refused to negotiate with First Nations in Ontario” and “refused to enter into good-faith conversations”, according to the Chiefs of Ontario;
- agrees with the Chiefs of Ontario, that First Nations should be exempt from the carbon tax.
Debate arose thereon.
Jaime Battiste moved, — That the debate be now adjourned.
The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7;
NAYS: Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 4.
Questioning of the witnesses resumed.
The witnesses made statements and answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on new Clause 3.1 of the Bill.
On new Clause 3.1,
Lori Idlout moved, — That Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 2 the following new clause:“3.1 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), Indigenous peoples of Canada has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lori Idlout and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Bob Zimmer — 10;
NAYS: Arnold Viersen — 1.
“3.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as recognizing any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that is represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule, including any right or claim relating to land or resources.”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Arnold Viersen appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Michael V. McLeod — 6;
NAYS: Lori Idlout, Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 5.
On Clause 4,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended(a) by replacing line 8 on page 3 with the following:
“Constitution Act 1982, of certain Métis communities”
(b) by replacing line 10 on page 3 with the following:
“ments to act on behalf of those communities;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jamie Schmale, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 3;
NAYS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7.
Clause 4 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Michael V. McLeod, Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Bob Zimmer — 9;
NAYS: Lori Idlout, Arnold Viersen — 2.
On new Clause 4.1,
Jamie Schmale moved, — That Bill C-53 be amended by adding before line 17 on page 3 the following new clause:“4.1 (1) If a treaty is entered into by a Métis government and His Majesty in right of Canada, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a copy of the treaty on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the treaty is entered into.
(2) After it is tabled, the treaty stands referred to the standing committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to Indigenous peoples.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), Indigenous peoples has the meaning assigned by the definition aboriginal peoples of Canada in subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jamie Schmale and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
On Clause 5,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-53, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 20 on page 3 with the following:“5 (1) If a treaty is entered into by a Métis government and His Majesty in right of Canada, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations must cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a copy of the treaty on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the treaty is entered into.
(2) On affirmation by resolution of both Houses of Parliament that the requirements for the coming into force of the treaty that are set out in the treaty have been met, the”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Whereupon, Arnold Viersen appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7;
NAYS: Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 4.
“Governor in Council may, by order, no earlier than 30 sitting days after the treaty has been tabled under section 4.1,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jamie Schmale and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 5, as amended, carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Gabriel Ste-Marie, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
Clause 6 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Bob Zimmer — 10;
NAYS: Arnold Viersen — 1.
On Clause 7,
Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-53, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 7 on page 4.After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Gary Vidal, Arnold Viersen — 4;
NAYS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod — 7.
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 4 with the following:
“tween a treaty or Indigenous right or title and the provisions of this Act or any other”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 6 on page 4 with the following:
“Act or any other Act of Parliament, the treaty, right or title prevails to”
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
The question was put on Clause 7.
Whereupon, Arnold Viersen appealed the Chair's decision to proceed to putting the question on Clause 7.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Michael V. McLeod — 6;
NAYS: Lori Idlout, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 5.
Clause 7 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Jenica Atwin, Jaime Battiste, Ben Carr, Anna Gainey, Marilène Gill, Lori Idlout, Michael V. McLeod, Eric Melillo, Jamie Schmale, Arnold Viersen, Bob Zimmer — 11;
NAYS: — 0.
At 5:17 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.