Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 9 - Evidence - October 29, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement, met this day at 6:51 p.m. to give clause-by- clause consideration to the bill; and for the consideration of a draft budget to study challenges relating to First Nations infrastructure on reserves.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in the room or via CPAC or the Web. I'm Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. The first part of this evening's meeting will be devoted to Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement. In the second part of the meeting, we will consider a very short budget relating to our upcoming interim report on housing. Finally, we will hold an in camera discussion.
Before we proceed to the testimony, would you please introduce yourselves, members of the committee?
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Dyck: Senator Lillian Dyck, deputy chair, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace from New Brunswick.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. As you know, in recent meetings we have been studying Bill C-428. We have heard from a number of witnesses on this bill over the course of four meetings. Now that the evidence is complete, we can proceed to the next stage where the committee issues its report. Tonight we've scheduled clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-428.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Senator Sibbeston?
Senator Sibbeston: Before we do this, can I just ask a general question? I have not been here at any of the meetings that considered this bill and where you had the benefit of witnesses. So I just have one general question, and I'm sure you'll know the answer.
Obviously, this bill is to provide for band councils making bylaws and posting them, and they come into effect immediately or as stated in the bylaw. Is this a big step, as it were, from having to have the band normally pass a bylaw and then having to send it to Ottawa to have the minister approve it? Is this a step in this regard?
The Chair: I think you've described the intent of the bill correctly, that it bypasses the ministerial approval requirement.
Senator Sibbeston: So it is a big step forward in giving bands autonomy, not having to have everything vetted and approved by Ottawa?
The Chair: Yes, I think that was how it was described to us by witnesses, including the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Sibbeston: I think, on this basis, it is a good step and good bill.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Now, we should proceed to an examination of each clause of the bill. Of course, that is one of the provisions, but there are others.
I would like then to proceed to clause by clause and first ask you to examine the title. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Dyck: I have amendments to consider for clause 2.
The Chair: Okay, thank you, Senator Dyck. There's a proposed amendment.
Senator Dyck: Which I think has been distributed.
The Chair: We will make sure it has been distributed. I haven't seen it yet.
Senator Dyck: I will make some preparatory comments while we do that.
The Chair: Please go ahead while it's being distributed.
Senator Dyck: I'd like to make some general comments, just with regard to amendments in general, so that we're all on the same page. I know that we do have some newer members who haven't been involved in clause-by-clause analysis. None of us actually, I believe, in this committee, has been involved in a private member's bill either.
If this bill is amended, it will go back to the House of Commons. We calculate that it would likely be considered there sometime in February. If we did amend it, it would go back. It would take some time, but it would be reconsidered in the House of Commons.
With regard to that timing, if an election is called or if prorogation happens, this bill, as a private member's bill, would not die on the Order Paper. It would still come back, and it may have already survived a prorogation. I can't remember the exact timeline. So this is an advantage of a private member's bill over a government bill. In those kinds of circumstances, the bill is still alive and will come back.
Just in general — I have a stack of amendments to go through — the amendments are meant to improve the bill and, in clause 2, to actually give a little more teeth to the sponsor and also give a little more teeth to the role of the Senate in clause 2.
Has everyone gotten what they are supposed to have?
Senator Moore: Yes.
Senator Dyck: Okay, so the first amendment I guess I read out. I move:
That Bill C-428 be amended in clause 2, on page 2,
(a) by replacing line 1 with the following:
"2. (1) Within the first 10 sitting days of the"; and
(b) by adding after line 9 the following:
"(2) Within the first 10 sitting days of the Senate in every calendar year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must cause to be laid before the Senate a report on the nature and progress of the work undertaken by his or her department in consultation with First Nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.".
This is inserting a new subclause so as not to alter the original clause that the House of Commons has already approved. It's putting in a new subclause that recognizes that the Senate should receive the report. So it's adding the Senate to the parliamentary process of reporting on Indian Act amendments. I'm just going to address that aspect first of all.
The sponsor said that this would be done automatically because the Senate is not mentioned in the original bill. He said that he thought the process would automatically happen, but we actually consulted the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, and I believe you have copies of the brief from Michel Bédard. I'm going to read parts of it to put it into the record so that we're all very clear that, unless the Senate is mentioned within the bill, it does not automatically come to us.
If you look at the section of the Law Clerk's briefing note to us, under "Right of the Senate to a Report," it says:
It was suggested during a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that reports tabled before the House of Commons are automatically tabled before the Senate.
Reports that are tabled before the House of Commons may indeed be tabled before the Senate pursuant to the Rules of the Senate or with the consent of the Senate. Reports from the Auditor General, for example, are tabled before Senate despite the fact that the relevant provisions of the Auditor General Act refer only to the House of Commons.
This is the important part.
Such a practice, however, does not create a right to the report for the Senate. Therefore, if no report were to be prepared and tabled, it would be for the House of Commons, and not for the Senate, to raise and dispose of the matter.
The failure of departments to table before a House of Parliament, within the prescribed time, reports that are to be prepared and tabled pursuant to statute law has already been considered a prima facie case of privilege (or contempt of Parliament): "Statute laws affecting the House of Commons [or Senate,] such as tabling of documents, may constitute contempt if not adhered to."
Clause 2 of Bill C-428 creates an obligation to report only to the House of Commons. If no report were to be tabled, the matter could only be raised as a question of privilege or otherwise in that House and not in the Senate.
So I think that makes it clear. I will read the last two paragraphs of his brief:
Both the English and French versions are ambiguous as to the nature of the report to be made to the responsible House of Commons committee: the English version states that the Minister "must report", while the French version declares that he or she "must present a report . . ." Each version allows for one of two interpretations: a written report or an oral one. It would be for the House of Commons and its responsible committee to determine whether or not the obligation has been fulfilled, as a House of Parliament has the exclusive right to administer that part of the statute law relating to its internal proceedings without outside interference.
This situation may impact on the Senate since, if the Minister were to report orally before the responsible House of Commons committee, there would be no report at all to be tabled before the Senate. Moreover, should the Minister report orally at an in camera meeting of the committee — an unlikely but not impossible scenario — his or her report could not be made public.
So that's what the Law Clerk has said. Unless the Senate is actually written into the bill, we may not have any right to whatever is going on within the House of Commons.
I would say that such a report should be brought to our attention because we are the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and our mandate, expressed usually weekly by the chair or the deputy chair of the meeting, generally is to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibility to First Nation, Metis and Inuit peoples. That's why I think it's extremely important for us to include the Senate within the bill.
So that explains that part of the proposed amendment. Additionally, we have inserted the word "progress" into this clause, the additional clause. The reason for that is that Mr. Clarke, the sponsor of the bill, said he thought it was in the bill and he wanted to ensure progress was being made, but the word "progress" is not actually there, so within the new clause we have inserted the word "progress." And we have also changed the word "collaboration" to "consultation." "Consultation" has a much more legally defined meaning, whereas "collaboration" is more ambiguous, and as Mr. Chartrand, our last witness, said, ambiguity invites dispute and litigation.
That is the intention of the motion, and I invite you all, as the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to support it.
Senator Moore: Do you need a seconder?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck, for that explanation and for the material you tabled.
In amendment to the motion that clause 2 carry, the Honourable Senator Dyck moves:
That Bill C-428 be amended in clause 2, on page 2,
(a) by replacing line 1 with the following:
"2. (1) Within the first 10 sitting days of the"; and
(b) by adding after line 9 the following:
"(2) Within the first 10 sitting days of the Senate in every calendar year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must cause to be laid before the Senate a report on the work undertaken by his or her department in consultation with First Nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.".
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Ngo: As the sponsor of the bill, the first thing I would like to mention is I do not agree with Senator Dyck that if we amend the bill it would be reconsidered in February and so on; I don't think so. I understand that as a private member's bill, if we amend it, we return it to the House of Commons, the bill will go to the bottom of the pile of other bills. So there's a possibility that the bill would never be heard again the next spring or summer.
Basically I don't agree with that, but I point out that during our hearing we suggested that we could put some sort of observations in the report for clause 2 regarding the written report by the minister, not only in the House of Commons but also in the Senate. I'm going to say we recommend that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs recognize the significant work and contribution done by the House of Commons and the Senate committees, those mandates that pertain to aboriginal affairs, and report in writing to both committees in the first 10 sitting days on all the work done, developed to replace the Indian Act and so on.
We would like to put that into the proposed observations after each clause so that it will go with the work of the bill, and the minister also will be aware that he has to do that within the next 10 days with the written report to both houses. That's what we suggested during the committee hearings when we talked. I would agree with that. I propose that we put this clause under the observations on that particular clause 2.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ngo. We are debating the amendment now, and I believe you are proposing an observation. Those are traditionally considered following the clause by clause, so we can note it, but I would ask that we turn to the amendment proposed by Senator Dyck for now.
Did you have anything further?
Senator Ngo: No. I don't agree with that. I think we should put it in the observations so that the amendment does not cause problems with the bill if we send it back to the House of Commons.
Senator Tannas: I wanted to make sure we had the right wording, because there was a misspelling on page 5. It still said "collaboration," and I think the intention was "consultation," which you caught verbally, for the record. But on this written proposal, it's got "collaboration" instead of "consultation" as part of Senator Dyck's amendments, unless I'm reading the wrong one. I am looking at number 5.
The Chair: That word should be "consultation."
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Is that clear to everyone?
Senator Tannas: It is now. Thank you.
The Chair: Further to the amendment, Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment. It seems to me that it clarifies and provides for the important Aboriginal issues coming before the Senate. I support the bill generally because it is a step forward in relinquishing the federal minister's control of the First Nations people in our country. When this bill is passed, when bylaws are passed, once they are put up on the Internet or posted or printed somewhere, then they become law. They needn't go to Ottawa for final approval.
This is just an idea. I say it in a very positive, pleasant way: The plight of Aboriginal people is very tough. Throughout history, things have been done to my people by the government, in a sense. Here we are in our committee. We have a number of Aboriginal people here who are making the case for the First Nations in our country, proposing amendments that would improve legislation dealing with First Nations.
On that basis, would you give us the benefit that we know what we're talking about, that we are Aboriginal people making the case for Aboriginal First Nations people in our country? Would you consider just giving us credit or credence, as it were, that we know what we're talking about? If truly you support what we say, it will be steps forward in improving the plight of First Nations in our country. It is just a consideration that we should merit some weight in all of you considering that, because we're Native people, Aboriginal people making the case to you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sibbeston. To the amendment, Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: Yes. I just wanted to respond to one comment that Senator Ngo made, that this would go to the bottom of the pile in the House of Commons. It will go back to the House of Commons, and currently it would go to number 24. We have been told there are 30 spots for private members' bills and that it comes up every day, and that it would move from 24 to 23 to 22 and so on, so that eventually it would come to the top of the pile. We calculated that would be some time in February. It doesn't stay at the bottom of the pile. It is an automatic process that deals with it. If that's important in your consideration in not accepting this amendment, I would suggest that you get clarity that if this bill is amended, that doesn't mean it will go to the House of Commons and stay there forever, sitting at the bottom of a pile. It will be considered.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck.
Senator Sibbeston: Or just take a chance. Take a chance, for once.
Senator Wallace: Again, we have just seen these proposed amendments 10 minutes ago, so we're trying to digest them. One of the major things that strike me about this, which is unusual, and that hardly begins to describe it, is that Senator Dyck, you are proposing to add to clause 2 as it is now in the bill. Clause 2 sets out a reporting process for the minister to report to the House of Commons. There is very specific language in there as to how that is to occur, what it is to involve. In particular, as you point out, the work that would be described by the minister would refer to what has been done in collaboration with First Nations.
You suggest consultation. I will come back and comment on that specifically. What strikes me in all of this is that you are proposing we leave that reporting mechanism to the house as it is in the bill, and then we add to it something different, to the Senate. They're not the same. They're not consistent. It is not the same language. And I agree with you that whenever we can add clarity to bills, we should do that, and we can improve upon them. But in my experience here and outside of my time as a senator, I have never seen it suggested that a bill be changed by having different language that is dealing with a significant reporting issue of two different levels of government.
On that basis alone, what you proposed would be a serious mistake. Your proposed amendment changes the reference that the minister must report to the House of Commons; you've changed that to a report being laid, which is not an insignificant change, the report that would be laid before the Senate, as you propose it, on the nature and progress. Those words don't appear in what is to be presented to the house. In consultation, you propose that it would be in relation to the work that resulted from consultation with First Nations as opposed to in collaboration. Those are significant changes.
So here we would have one section with two different reporting mechanisms all dealing with the same issue, and we have two levels of Parliament, both of which have the same end objectives. Drafting legislation in that way would be a serious, serious mistake.
One final comment I would make. It is not an amendment because you are proposing to change the words that now appear, the word that appears referring to "collaboration," the department's collaboration with First Nations, and change that to "consultation," in that referring it to consultation would be an improvement. I don't agree with that. If anything, collaboration, to me, suggests that there's a back and forth exchange of issues and points of view in arriving at a conclusion.
If it's consultation, consultation can be one way. You can have one party simply sitting down and saying this is what we discovered and that's it. There doesn't necessarily have to be a two-way discussion. In my view, the reference that's in the bill now to collaboration is more akin to what we would all think is appropriate.
In conclusion, I understand the reason why you bring these amendments, or I believe I do, and I applaud you for that, but I think what you proposed, to me, is not acceptable.
Senator Dyck: May I respond?
The Chair: Okay. I have Senator Tannas on the list next.
Senator Dyck: You've outlined the amendment correctly. This was all done quite deliberately. The Law Clerk suggested that a separate clause be put under essentially as 2.1, that the first part that outlines what is going to happen in the House of Commons should remain unchanged, because they have already dealt with it and they have approved it. It is respecting what they have already passed and approved. He said to insert it as a separate subclause to what should go on in the Senate. Having a separate subclause was a deliberate manoeuvre.
This first amendment is trying to put in what I see as all the changes that would make this be the best possible bill. I know you don't agree with some of that, but that was the intention.
With respect to progress, as I said before, the sponsor, meaning not Senator Ngo but Mr. Clarke, kept talking about how this was meant to report on the progress.
We disagree with "collaboration" and "consultation." The First Nation witnesses always say they prefer "consultation" because "consultation" has a meaning within the constitutional law under section 35, where Aboriginal peoples have a right to be consulted and accommodated on any legislation or things that affect their rights. That's why First Nation people prefer the word "consultation." "Collaboration," although it may have a dictionary meaning, does not have that same legal binding meaning to it.
Senator Tannas: I want to respond briefly to Senator Sibbeston's comments. As far as I know, this is the only piece of legislation that will have been introduced by a member of First Nations, so we are very conscious of the fact that we want to listen to First Nations. This bill is the brainchild of one of our First Nations parliamentarians. For me, it carries extra weight, and that leads me to the next issue, which is that the best information that I was able to obtain is that if we amend the bill, we will put the bill at significant risk of not seeing the light of day over in the other place. That does carry a lot for me.
The third issue is around the involvement of the Senate specifically in this bill. All of us as senators wished that that was the case. For me, to send the bill back on an amendment such as that and risk it not coming back is more venal than I can live with, to do that on the principle of being mentioned, when we know it would be only the most ridiculous and extraordinary circumstances, secret, where we would not be able to find out what happened in that annual report that the minister will make to the House of Commons.
On that basis, for all of those things, the final one is collaboration. I think "collaboration" in this instance is important. Collaboration means there is an action on both sides and that both sides have had their hand in working towards a solution. Consultation means somebody was asked before it was done to them. I think collaboration in this instance is particularly important.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate what members have said, but I do know that, from experience, the word "collaboration" is a weasel word. We have had that experience in dealing with non-derogation clauses where the Department of Justice would change a word. On the face of it, it doesn't look like much but, in legality, it made a huge difference. In this way, it was taking away the Aboriginal rights of people. In my view, "collaboration" is a weasel word because it is vague and uncertain, whereas "consultation" is now beginning to be an established word, an established concept. The courts have defined it. They have said things like, "Consultation is not . . . " They have said what it is not. It has to be a real, two-way process. Consultation isn't just me meeting with you and me talking all the time. Just the fact that you are present doesn't mean there's been consultation. Consultation has now a meaning in legal circles, and it has been defined. I'm sure the gentleman that wrote this, either himself or I'm sure the Department of Justice, had a hand in this. They are using weasel words — "collaboration" — to take away from the strength of "consultation" and how we have begun to understand that meaning. I am not impressed with the use of "collaboration," and "consultation" would be a better word to use. Would you not agree, Senator Patterson?
The Chair: I'm a neutral chair right now, or trying to be.
Senator Wallace: Senator Dyck, I wanted to comment on the point I thought you were making that since you are not proposing to change clause 2, the language that's there presently in the bill and that was approved by the house, the house should be fine with it. We are simply adding on something else to deal with the Senate.
Senator Sibbeston: Yes.
Senator Wallace: That's not the way it works, and we all know that. We don't have two separate parts of a bill where one is the Senate part and one is the house part. We look at the bill in its entirety. We look at it in its entirety.
Frankly, regardless of what the house may have thought, I could never bring myself to approve two different reporting provisions that deal with exactly the same issue, one for the house and one for the Senate. That just does not make sense. To think that the house would only look at, "Well, our section is still the same, and we won't worry about the Senate," that's not the way they would look at it either. That's not responsible. It is not the way legislation is enacted.
Senator Sibbeston: Can I just respond to that? Say there is a real difference. When the minister reports to the House of Commons, he's acting on behalf of the government reporting to his peers, as it were. He's the minister, and he's accountable to all the MPs and so forth. That's where the government is. When you report to the Senate, it is a different matter. We're not in government. We're not part of government. It is a different body. The Senate is sober second thought. It is not like the first place where the minister has to justify himself and has to account to his peers, as it were.
It is a different house. You can't treat them as if they were the same. It is okay to have a different way of reporting, laying instead and consultation. We must have different words. It is okay, because we are not part of the government. The minister reporting or laying the report before us. He's presenting it to the House of Commons, which he must, but laying it before the Senate is a different matter. It is a lesser motion. You can lay it there by leaving it on the table, as it were. It is important to recognize the difference in the two houses, and perhaps a different approach would be acceptable.
Senator Wallace: With all due respect, I disagree with that. I can't agree with that, but I respect your opinion.
Senator Raine: We are getting a little bit confused here, because in this legislation we are asking the minister to report to the House of Commons committee on the work his department has been doing with First Nations and other stakeholders. It will be ongoing, how you are getting on with the job of replacing the Indian Act. For that reason, you don't need to tie it up in legal terms like "consultation" that might delay the process of getting on with the work. I think this clause is very good the way it stands.
Senator Dyck: I am going to start with the comment that this bill was introduced by Mr. Clarke, who is a First Nations person. It's very good that that has happened.
However, whether he's a First Nations person or not is not really relevant as you still want the best possible bill. It is somewhat surprising because for most First Nations people, the idea of consultation is something that's been drilled into anyone who's had any experience dealing with proposed legislation that involves First Nations people. You would think that as a member of Parliament sitting on the House of Commons Aboriginal Affairs Committee he would know. I don't think we should make any exceptions just simply on the basis of the fact that he's First Nations. You still want to have the best possible language and the best possible reporting, just as you wouldn't say, "Well, a woman introduced this bill, therefore we're going to let it go by because it deals with a women's issue." I don't think that should be considered as a factor. It's something that we shouldn't really get into.
The only other thing I would say with regard to the bill going to the bottom of the pile is that we have already had one bill. Bill C-377, the union bill, is a private member's bill that we amended and sent back to the House of Commons. It was placed at the bottom of the order of precedence and was making its way back up the list when prorogation occurred. The bill was reintroduced in the Senate without those amendments.
Any amendments that we agree to will not be the kiss of death. They may create delays, but they won't be the kiss of death. The bill will not die because we amend it.
With regard to why we're putting in this separate thing, perhaps this was the advice that we got and because a bill is not complete because it left us out. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable suggestion to put this back in and put in the proper process of reporting.
Senator Moore: I have listened to the arguments back and forth. It's clear to me that the Senate is not included in this, given the way the bill is worded; and it should be included. That's what we do. That's part of our mandate as one of the two legislative houses of Parliament.
Senator Watt: It's the normal way.
Senator Moore: Maybe we could consider, and this is subject to Senator Dyck's thoughts on this, saying "The minister must report to the committees of both houses of Parliament responsible for . . ." and then the rest of the wording could stay.
I like "consultation" better, but in order to get the other, I would go along with "collaboration" if we could get this. I'm sure that it would make better law and would be better for the whole process if the Senate were formally included, which it should be. There shouldn't be any debate about this.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, then, we will vote on the amendment. Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: I'm not quite sure exactly what I'm allowed to do. I think I can speak but I'm not allowed to vote because I'm not a member.
The Chair: Yes, that's unfortunately the rule, as explained to me by the clerk.
Senator Watt: May I take advantage of that to speak? I'd like to make a comment on this.
I know Senator Wallace stated that this is a very unusual way of dealing with proposed legislation. I came to sort of the same conclusion when I first saw the original draft. What are we doing? At the same time, I realized there was something missing in here. Normally when we try to pass bills, we address both houses. That's the normal practice, especially when a committee is dealing with it from the Senate side. That's very important.
I understood also when the presenter of the amendment stated the fact that it was already passed in the House of Commons. For that reason, she got recommendations from the Law Clerk to do it in this fashion, which you are not familiar with and I'm not familiar with, either.
On that account, what is proposed by Senator Moore with regard to recognizing the fact there are two houses and also two committees, we should follow that logic and change the "collaboration" to "consultation." That would make the point that Senator Dyck has put forward.
I don't know whether I make myself clear, but in a sense, that's what I'm hearing.
The Chair: This has been a thorough debate. We will now vote on the amendment of the Honourable Senator Dyck.
Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The chair is a little confused. Maybe I shall ask the question again. Could you please speak up?
Shall the amendment, as proposed by the Honourable Senator Dyck, carry?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I believe the nays have it. The motion is defeated. That was a good debate.
Senator Watt: Hold on a minute. Is that on division at the committee level?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
The Chair: Yes, well I will put that on the record. The amendment is defeated on division.
Senator Watt: I have no rights to vote, but at least I can say something.
The Chair: We will resume debate on clause 2. If there are other amendments a senator would like to propose to this clause, this is the appropriate time to bring them forward.
Senator Dyck: Yes. We have quite a number of them.
The Chair: On clause 2?
Senator Dyck: Yes. Senator Moore, if you're ready.
Senator Moore: With regard to clause 2 and the discussion that just took place, I would like to move that Bill C-428 be amended in clause 2 at line 4 after the word "the":
. . . Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must report to the committees of both houses of Parliament responsible for Aboriginal affairs . . .
The rest of it continues as stated in the bill.
Senator Dyck: With consultation or collaboration?
Senator Moore: Yes, and that the word "consultation" be inserted in place of the word "collaboration," which would be deleted.
The Chair: Could you kindly repeat that, Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: I'll go slowly. I'll read it through.
So within the first 10 days —
The Chair: May I ask, are you working from the amendment we just reviewed?
Senator Moore: No. I'm looking at the bill.
The Chair: You're looking at the bill?
Senator Moore: Yes, I am, chair. As it stands.
Within the first 10 sitting days of the House of Commons in every calendar year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must report to the . . .
And insert the words "committees of both houses of Parliament"; and then it carries on:
. . . responsible for Aboriginal affairs on the work undertaken by his or her department in consultation with First Nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.
The Chair: So, colleagues, working from the bill, Senator Moore's amendment inserts the words "the committees of both houses of Parliament responsible for Aboriginal affairs," replacing "House of Commons committee."
Senator Moore: Correct.
The Chair: And it replaces "collaboration" with "consultation."
Senator Moore: Correct, chair. That's it.
The Chair: Is that amendment clear? Is that clear to everyone?
Senator Sibbeston: Agreed.
The Chair: It has been moved by Senator Moore that clause 2 be amended as I've just outlined. Did you wish to speak to that, Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: No, I think some of the comments from the other side certainly were supportive of this, namely that they didn't want a separate clause, so here we are using the same reporting mechanism. You have to include the Senate. You can't ignore that. That's got to go in anyway, and this is a clear and easy way to do it.
In consideration of the comments of our First Nations colleagues, I think the word "consultation" should be inserted, although I respect the comments from the members opposite. I think deference has to be given to the members of the committee and their backgrounds and knowledge of workings with the department.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Moore. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators —
Senator Dyck: Is there any further discussion?
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Senator Dyck: No?
The Chair: The motion has been put on the floor, and I will ask is it your pleasure that the motion in amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
Senator Sibbeston: Why not?
Senator Watt: Why not?
The Chair: Now to the amendment?
Senator Dyck: Sorry?
The Chair: Did I understand that you wished to speak to the amendment now and that you were —
Senator Dyck: I thought you were just —
The Chair: It's on the floor.
Senator Dyck: You asked the question already so we can't debate it.
The Chair: Now debate takes place.
Senator Moore: It's done.
Senator Dyck: But I thought you asked the question.
Senator Sibbeston: You asked for a vote. We voted. You've got to ask for the other side to vote.
Senator Moore: You asked everybody in the room to vote.
Senator Dyck: I thought we debate before we vote.
Marcy Zlotnick, Clerk of the Committee: It's open for debate right now.
Senator Dyck: We did this the first time.
Ms. Zlotnick: The question has to be put.
Senator Dyck: The question is put.
Ms. Zlotnick: Then the debate takes place, then the vote.
Senator Dyck: We didn't vote, but the question's been put.
The Chair: No, I put the question.
Senator Dyck: We're confused. Sorry.
The Chair: Okay, the amendment is on the floor.
Senator Moore: I have spoken to it.
The Chair: Senator Dyck, on the amendment.
Senator Dyck: I want to thank everyone for the fulsome debate on the first amendment. I thought it was very good. Thank you all on both sides.
I think it shows how carefully we have considered this bill. I thank Senator Moore. I think what he's proposed is a good solution that's taking into account observations from both sides. I hope that it will satisfy concerns on both sides and that we will all support it, especially as members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
The Chair: Anything further? Senator Ngo?
Senator Ngo: Yes. We have already voted on clause 2, the proposed amendment by Senator Dyck. We are now putting forward another amendment on clause 2 proposed by Senator Moore. With any amendment that we do, the bill will go back to the bottom of the pile, and that's a risk. We all agree that this is a good bill. Although it cannot replace the Indian Act, as I told Senator Watt when we were talking, at least it chips a bit of the pieces of the Indian Act to be replaced by this one so that we can see the whole thing better than going word by word on semantic things such as "collaboration" and "consultation."
Professor Chartrand has an idea. Professor Peach has another idea. He says that "collaboration" and "consultation" are synonymous. I think collaboration is working together with somebody else. With consultation, however, I will talk to you and ask you for advice, but whether or not I take your advice is my decision. Collaboration means we work together; we speak together. That's what I understand. Professor Chartrand has a different opinion. I think he has the same idea, but Professor Peach said the same thing. He says that collaboration in this context, as proposed by MP Clarke, is effectively synonymous. I think this wording is not something that we will argue about, but the words "collaboration" and "consultation" have the same meaning, as Professor Peach said, I think.
I think you already proposed it should go to a vote. I don't know if anyone else has any other ideas, but I think we should have something concrete because any amendment will put the bill back at the bottom of the pile, and it's risky.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: I don't want to take any chance. I think this is a good bill in general.
Senator Moore: You have to do your job first.
Senator Ngo: This bill has four things in it: The First Nations can publish their own bylaws; it removes the impediment to trade; it removes the word "residential school"; and it adds report by the minister.
We agree that the minister has to report to the House of Commons as well as the Senate. I propose that we put that one as an observation under that clause. I think that should satisfy both sides.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ngo.
Senator Watt: I would just like to respond to Senator Ngo, since you are saying no.
This bill is tackling only the first part, what the sponsor of the bill thinks is the best thing to do, the way to go or to deal with the amendment and to try to fix the problems that have been identified by the First Nations for a long time with respect to the minister's power. Do you understand it so far?
This is far from being complete. This is not final. There is more work to be done. We don't feel we should be dealing with this legislation as though it's a finished product. It's not a finished product — far from it. For that reason it's important not only to collaborate but also to consult. I do agree with you when you say that when you work together, it's collaboration. However, consultation is more important, and then there is collaboration. They have to consult with us first, and then we have to consult with the government. It goes back and forth. That's what it needs to be. You cannot put yourself in the position to unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the First Nation which they have left under the Indian Act for a hell of a long time.
There is a time period that is needed by the Aboriginal groups, so, as a department, do it properly this time. We were totally excluded from the Constitution when the Constitution was first formulated. We are trying to get back on the boat, or you might call it a sled that is taking off. We were not there before, so don't try to water down what we have already negotiated in the Constitution. I could even go so far as to say that this probably violates what we are doing today on the Constitution. If that is challenged by one of the Aboriginal groups, any time, it's not bulletproof, because what you are doing is basically having us agree to make laws and to deal with something that is not even dealing with the whole encompassing Indian Act.
That is the problem. That's why we were trying to put forward those amendments, because we feel there are very strong feelings among the Aboriginal groups across the country. You cannot constantly, year after year, pull the wool over their eyes. Enough is enough.
So let's work together. If we are going to collaborate, we are asking you, "Let's have a proper consultation process." That's important to us and important to you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much, chair. I guess I'm going to appeal to the First Nation comments that you made, Senator Sibbeston and others. We had, in the last month, two witnesses, one a professor from Winnipeg who had analyzed the bill clause by clause, cover to cover, and the second the MP himself, Rob Clarke, whose sincerity and desire to genuinely make a better nation for Aboriginal people was hard to miss. I've been here for a couple of years in the Senate, and I haven't seen a perfect bill yet. I've supported them when I can see that they do no harm and might be helpful. I asked the university professor what his opinion was on the bill. There's a First Nations divide about whether we should do it piecemeal, baby steps, a little bit at the time, or one big omnibus reform of the Indian Act. He said that First Nations themselves can't agree on the type of consultation, but he said that what this does is start trust. What we need is trust, and, somehow, we haven't had that. Because MP Rob Clarke is a duly elected First Nation member of Parliament, his heart and his soul are in the right place. His bill, he feels, opens the door for that trust. We know that if it's amended, it goes back and starts over, at whatever place doesn't matter. I would argue this: Why not support it? It's a start, and it certainly can't do any harm. There's nothing in it that I've read — and I've read it cover to cover — that does any harm, and it just opens the door. Then we can talk about the consultation and try to agree with First Nations and with the rest of Canadians.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate what you say, but, at the same time, what's our role as senators? Do we not have an opportunity? We're First Nations too, and do we not have a chance to deliberate and try to improve something? Because if it's your view, if you take that view, then anything that comes from the House of Commons can never be changed by the Senate. Then what's our purpose if we just have to automatically concur? Our job as senators is to generally improve the legislation that comes before us, and that's what we're doing. We see that it's good. Like I said, it's positive, but we can improve it a little bit more. So, on that basis, I think you ought to be open because we're just doing our job. Like I say, we're First Nations, so trust us. We have had 100 years of no trust, so here we are, little as we are and few as we are, suggesting something to you. Are you going to respond, or are you going to stand still, as has been done for 100 years? No. That's what the appeal is. It's not life; it's not earth-shattering. It's not going to doom the bill. It's going to go back, and it's going to come back, hopefully, in concurrence.
My statement on the consultation is that the government is using weasel words in using "collaboration" because that's an unknown term. "Consultation" is becoming known. Courts have made decisions on it, have defined it, and so why not use "consultation"? Why didn't he, with advice from the Department of Justice, agree on "consultation"? It's because they don't want consultation. They want something. They're tricky. They're weaselly. They're not there in the interests of First Nations people. We are, and so they throw in "collaboration" because it's a vague term. Now, the whole process has to be defined. Courts have to define it again. So, in my view, it's trickery. It's trying to fool people. So, on that basis, why don't you just support us? Never mind the consequences and just trust that it will go back and then come back before too long and that we'll eventually all support it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sibbeston. I did let you jump ahead of Senator Lovelace Nicholas.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate that. Thank you for your patience.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I think the word "collaboration" was used purposely in this bill, and this affects the lives of First Nations people all across Canada. What's the harm in putting in "consultation" because it holds more clout than the word "collaboration"? "Collaboration" just does not hold ground with First Nations.
Senator Dyck: I don't know where to start. Thank you all for this discussion. It's really good. Senator Watt made a very good point that this bill is starting something that is ongoing, so, if we don't get the words, like "consultation," in there and don't include the Senate, then we are weakening what happens in the future. In a sense, that does harm, so, if we don't do it the right way, we can do harm because we're not doing the right thing.
I did have here information on the standard procedure for private members' bills, but it's gone dead. I've been waiting here for so long, but trust me. I would read this into the record if I had to, but trust me. The private members' bills are not going to go there and die. It says so here on the parliamentary website, and, if you don't believe me and keep saying that it's going to happen, I'll be forced to read it. So I just hope you believe me. They won't die. It will take time, yes, but is it not worth the time when you're talking about the future of First Nations people across Canada versus a First Nation MP who wants to do the right thing? Surely he wants to do the right thing for everybody else and not put them at risk.
My final comment is this: You may include those types of things, what's in these amendments, in the observations, but the observations have no legal weight. In fact, very few people even read them. If it's not in the bill, it isn't going to happen. There's no weight, no legal force behind it. The minister or whoever, even if it was a minister who looked kindly upon it, might not even read it. They wouldn't even be aware. It has to be within the bill as an operative clause. That's why we put the Senate and consultation within the operative clause of the bill.
Senator Beyak: I just had to respond that the Senate amends bills all the time. That's our job. The MP told us that, in this case, on consultations with First Nations, it's been going on for decades, trying to amend the Indian Act. It keeps going back and forth and back and forth, and, as a First Nation MP, he felt he had the credibility to write a bill that was a start, that would open the door. I'm still with him on that, and it's the reason that I don't support any amendments. I don't want it to go back and forth. I want us to start talking.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: I just wanted to say something on the point that was just raised. I think we want to do the right thing. We are not here to try to stop this piece of legislation. What we are saying is that the sponsor of the bill made it absolutely clear to us that this is only the beginning. If it's only the beginning, let's do it properly. This is why we are proposing these amendments. No other reasons at all. I, personally, have a lot of other things to worry about on this bill, but I'm not addressing them.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Ngo.
Senator Ngo: The reason I always raise the issue of our amending the bill and having it go back to the bottom of the pile and so on and so on is because we know that we don't know the time. You think that it will be February, March, April, May, whatever, but 2015, that's next year. There are going to be elections. Once the house prorogues, the bill will die.
Senator Dyck: No, it won't.
Senator Ngo: That's what I'm afraid of. Personally, I think this is a good bill, as I have discussed with other senators. I think this is a good bill. I agree with the chief the other day who said you don't change a flat tire by just shouting at it. You have to do something.
MP Clarke is doing something. It is a good bill in general, and he's going chip by chip, stone by stone, a little bit smaller and smaller to destroy the big mountain or whatever. It takes time, of course, but we will go there. This bill comes with new things. Maybe another one will come after the election. You have another one with six little things, and chip by chip, day by day, month by month, year by year, you're going to get it. But to destroy the whole thing — you say to take off the whole Indian Act is going to be tough because you also mentioned that even the First Nations don't agree with each other. Half of them don't agree with the other half, so how can you achieve something or get rid of the Indian Act when half of the First Nations don't agree with it?
Basically, we have to do small steps, baby steps. This time he walks four, maybe the next one another six, another one ten. Maybe one day, two years, three years, we achieve something. Basically, that's the reason why I support the bill and I support no amendment, because I'm afraid that a good bill will die.
Senator Dyck: Can I make a clarification on that, that this bill will die? My understanding — and we can look it up, if we need to — is that a private member's bill — we have already been through this with the union bill, a private member's bill, or maybe it wasn't that one, sorry. Yes, on prorogation, it doesn't die, and our understanding is that the private member's bill, if there's an election, which you brought up, this bill, as I understand it, will not die. Can we get clarification on that?
Senator Ngo: What I am saying is if Parliament prorogues or dissolves, the bill dies automatically.
Senator Dyck: No, and I think that's what we need to clarify.
Senator Sibbeston: Because of the confusion, why don't we defer the discussion of this tonight and deal with it another time, and we will get some clarification about that, because you have raised an issue that if we make any amendment, somehow or another the bill is doomed, and that is not the case. Maybe we should get somebody to explain it so that you know for sure that that is not so. On that basis, why don't we defer? There are still quite a few amendments.
Senator Dyck: They're all similar. They are all variations of the same thing, trying to find out what you would accept.
The Chair: I may ask the clerk, who is our adviser on procedural matters and has been assisting me tonight with this process, if she could advise us. The question is, if the bill is amended and returned to the House of Commons and Parliament dissolves for an election that we do know is fixed —
Senator Sibbeston: Why are you suggesting that? We have now until the spring, quite a number of months within which time we can deal with this bill. Without it being dissolved, I think that would be a more appropriate question.
The Chair: There are two questions. The first question is what will be the effect procedurally of sending the bill back to the House of Commons while Parliament is still in session? The second question would be what will be the effect on this private member's bill if it is amended and there is an election called before the bill is able to be considered by the House of Commons? Will it still be returned following a general election? Those are the two questions.
The clerk has asked me for a few minutes to consider this. We have a law expert with us from the Library of Parliament. I would suggest we suspend for 10 minutes.
Senator Watt: I have experience personally handling a private member's bill.
The Chair: We are going to get advice from the clerk. Are you going to be able to assist the clerk?
Senator Watt: I'm not the clerk. I'm not saying don't bring them in. Bring them in by all means. When I was handling Bill S-207, which was the non-derogation clause, the way I handled it at that time was I let it die on the Order Paper. It probably would have been voted down, but I let it die on the Order Paper. Let's put it that way. But that does not mean I can't pick it up again and reintroduce it. The same thing can happen here. It's very similar.
The Chair: That's helpful, Senator Watt, but I think what we're looking at is what would the procedure be in the House of Commons.
Senator Watt: I realize the difference.
The Chair: We will suspend for 10 minutes and we will ask the clerk to come back with answers to those questions.
The clerk is prepared to answer the questions that were asked about the effect of this committee amending the bill and returning it to the House of Commons.
Ms. Zlotnick: There is a difference with respect to private members' bills versus other bills; however, it is only an exception that happens if there's a prorogation. If there's a dissolution, the same rules apply, so that, in fact, everything would be terminated at a dissolution and the bill would have to come back from the beginning, just as any other bill. I hope that clarifies the situation.
Senator Moore: At dissolution.
The Chair: That's before an election.
Senator Moore: That's right. Prorogation is not the same thing.
Ms. Zlotnick: No. With prorogation, a private member's bill would have to be reintroduced, but it would come back at the same place it was.
Senator Moore: That's right.
Ms. Zlotnick: And start the first stage again.
Senator Moore: Exactly. If an election was held in accordance with the law, it wouldn't be until next October, so there would be lots of time for this to be looked after, if the law is adhered to. It hasn't been in the past.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to give the answer. There were two questions. The first one is what would happen to the bill if amended and returned to the House of Commons? What would the procedure be while the House of Commons is still in session? If the bill was amended and returned to the House of Commons but there was a dissolution due to an election in, say, October 2015, which I think is on a statute, what would the effect of returning the bill be in that event?
Ms. Zlotnick: If there was a dissolution, then they would have to reintroduce the bill at the first stage again.
The Chair: It would die?
Ms. Zlotnick: It would have died, yes.
Senator Sibbeston: But now the relevant question is what happens in the next few weeks and months. That's the question. We already know if there's dissolution, it is dead, it is finished. You start over when the new government comes into play.
But in the ensuing months between now and next fall, if we do make amendments and the bill goes back to the House of Commons, what happens in the ensuing months? That is the question.
Ms. Zlotnick: Then we would spend a message to the House of Commons saying that we have amended the bill, and then they would have to decide whether they accept the amendments or not through their process.
Senator Sibbeston: And then what? That's what we want to know. What happens?
Ms. Zlotnick: That's a House of Commons process.
Senator Sibbeston: You have to tell us. You can't leave it in a big limbo.
The Chair: Our clerk is saying she's a clerk of the Senate and she can't comment on the procedure in the House of Commons.
Senator Sibbeston: Well, it doesn't die. It's not doomed.
Ms. Zlotnick: No, no, it doesn't die.
The Chair: My understanding — and I have asked about this — is that the bill is put in the list of private members' bills, but that it is put at the bottom of the list of private members' bills. I think I can say that safely.
It would be at the bottom of a list of private members' bills. We don't know how many private members' bills are on that list, but Senator Dyck has indicated that there's some 20 or more, so that's about all we can say because we don't know the pace at which private members' bills would be proceeded with in the House of Commons. That's the best answer we can give.
Do you have any further information, madam clerk?
Ms. Zlotnick: I can give you this from the Parliamentary text website:
If the motion for third reading is put by the Speaker and adopted by the House, the bill is sent to the Senate for further consideration. It is the Member's responsibility to find a sponsor for the bill in the Senate. The order for the consideration of Senate amendments to a private Member's bill is placed at the bottom of the Order of Precedence when the message relating to the amendments is received from the Senate. The Standing Orders do not specify any time limit for the consideration of a motion respecting Senate amendments. When the item reaches the top of the Order of Precedence, it is considered during Private Members' Business Hour and, if not disposed of at the end of the hour, it is placed again at the bottom of the Order of Precedence. This process is repeated until the debate ends and the question can be put on the motion.
The Chair: Thank you, madam clerk. That's the best information we can get.
Senator Dyck: Do people understand what that means?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Senator Wallace: Yes, we do.
Senator Dyck: I hope your understanding is different. My understanding is that that doesn't mean it is dead.
The Chair: I think that's what the clerk said. The clerk said it would go to the bottom of the list and it would work its way up, unless there's a dissolution. In the event of a dissolution of Parliament, as Senator Sibbeston said, it is dead. What we don't know is how quickly it would move up that list, and that would be beyond our ken at this moment.
I think we have now received the best information we can. Thank you, madam clerk and our Library of Parliament staff.
Now we're back to Senator Moore's amendment, and I would suggest that we now vote on the amendment of the Honourable Senator Moore. I would like to ask the committee: Shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I think the "nays" have it, so I am going to declare the amendment defeated.
Colleagues, we are due to adjourn in about 20 minutes, and I don't like to keep honourable members too long when we have had a long day. I know there are a number of amendments, Senator Dyck, and they all should be given due consideration. But I wonder if you would consider, in the interests of making sure we address these tonight, having your amendments tabled, all of them, for the committee to study, with a view to reviewing them and voting on them tonight, rather than one at a time.
We have dealt with two amendments in an hour and a half, and if we keep up at this pace, we're not going to complete our clause-by-clause consideration tonight. We do have witnesses and business scheduled for next week, so would it be helpful if you tabled your amendments and you can speak to them and we can look at them as a whole?
Senator Dyck: Yes. I'm glad you put that clarification in, because I wasn't quite sure what you meant. Many of the amendments I have are variations on the very first complete one. Then we move towards an amendment proposed by Senator Moore, which we thought satisfied some of the comments opposite. Now, I think probably, instead of going through quite a number of the ones that I had prepared, that we would then propose another amendment to the one that Senator Moore had, a slight variation on that one. Then I will not go through quite a few of these, and then I would skip to about number 10 or something like that on my list.
The Chair: Okay. In the interest of working to a resolution, I have received a copy of an observation that we might consider after we look at your amendments. Senator Ngo has referred to that.
Senator Dyck: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Moore, did you have another amendment?
Senator Moore: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. It is the same as the last amendment, with the exception of this time leave in the word "collaboration" rather than have it substituted with the word "consultation." I don't like it. I'm even concerned, as Senator Watt mentioned, this might be unconstitutional as it is, because under section 35, the First Nations have the right to be consulted. To me, it is just a watering down and continuation of the paternalistic attitude that this act speaks of.
I would move the same amendment as before, with the exception that the word "collaboration" remains.
Do you want me to read it out again?
The Chair: I can read it out for you, Senator Moore, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
In amendment to the motion that clause 2 carry, the Honourable Senator Moore moves that clause 2 read:
Within the first 10 sitting days of the House of Commons in every calendar year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must report to the committees of both houses of Parliament —
— and that the words "House of Commons committee" be deleted —
— responsible for Aboriginal affairs on the work undertaken by his or her department in collaboration with First Nations and other interested parties to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.
Is that clear?
Senator Moore: Yes.
The Chair: I think it is fair to say Senator Moore made one small change to the previous amendment which restores the word "collaboration" into that clause. Okay?
So, to the amendment, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt: I, for one, don't agree with that, because I think what you are doing is in a sense reducing the strengths of section 35. I don't think we are here for that, and I think we were supposed to deal specifically with the Indian Act issue. We have highlighted already the fact that it is only the beginning. The sponsor of the bill made it absolutely clear to us there's more to be done on the amendment in regard to the Indian Act.
The Government of Canada has an obligation to consult with the Aboriginal groups. That is within the highest order of the land in the Constitution. So why are we getting out of that?
Collaboration will become inevitable when they come to the point of agreeing to move in the direction of implementing section 35. Then the collaboration will probably start to kick in. If we say that we are collaborating now, when the other side is not collaborating, we are being looked at by our Aboriginal groups in this country, at this precise moment. Why are we talking about this issue?
What do you think you are doing to the Aboriginal groups outside? Are they going to be happy with you? Are we putting them a further distance away from the system, when we have a lot of work to do to try to amend what has been happening over the last 100 years? Come on. Let's get real.
Senator Tannas: Again, just to reiterate before hopefully we vote, we did have two very learned people speak around this particular issue, Senator Watt — Paul Chartrand and Dr. Peach, both of whom said that nothing in here is going to take away from the duty to consult. That's there already.
There is nothing in the word "collaboration" that somehow relieves everybody from the duty to consult. That has already been determined, as you just said.
This is, in their view, synonymous, and potentially it is more inclusive. It actually adds to the requirements as opposed to taking away some element of consultation. That was my understanding of the testimony we heard from the experts on this very issue.
Senator Dyck: My understanding from what Mr. Chartrand said was that "consultation" was the better word, that you wanted to have more clarity. He also did say that if it's ambiguous, it invites dispute and litigation. So even though "collaborate" might be acceptable, "consultation" was still better.
Senator Tannas: I agree, but it was not in the context of stripping some constitutional right to consultation.
Senator Dyck: Right.
Senator Watt: I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you on that point, because the sponsor of the bill kept on talking about chipping away at it. What does "chipping away at it" mean? To me, chipping away at it until it becomes no more.
To whose benefit? That's the key. To whose benefit are we chipping away at the Indian Act? Is it the benefit of the government or the benefit of the Aboriginal groups? I think you know the answer. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt.
So seeing no more speakers, I would like to call the question. Is it your — Senator Moore?
Senator Moore: Yes, chair, I'm just wondering, do I detect some approval of my amendment?
The Chair: Well, there have been two speakers who spoke in support of the word "collaboration."
Senator Moore: Yes, I heard that.
The Chair: I was about to find out.
Senator Moore: If we have reached a compromise, which seems to be the way of life, I will let it stand. But if it's going to be upsetting to my colleagues, particularly on this side, I would ask for permission to withdraw it.
Senator Dyck: Let it stand and go to a vote.
Senator Moore: All right, you want it to stand? All right, deputy chair.
The Chair: Your amendment is on the floor, Senator Moore.
Senator Moore: Yes, chair.
The Chair: And we'll find out what the committee thinks now because I would like to call the question.
So on amendment of the Honourable Senator Moore, shall the amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Watt: Did I hear somebody, two saying "yes"?
The Chair: I think the "nays" have it.
Senator Watt: We tried.
The Chair: Thank you for this, colleagues.
Senator Watt: It's a sad day, sad day.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Senator Dyck, I guess I'm asking you if there are other amendments you would like to propose to this clause.
Senator Dyck: No, no. There are, but I think I'll just set them aside because I can see the writing on the wall.
The Chair: Okay, thank you, Senator Dyck.
So there being no further proposed amendments for clause 2, I'll ask the committee: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Moore: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Thank you.
Shall clause 3 carry?
An Hon. Senator: Yes.
The Chair: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Dyck: I have an amendment to that which is really a consequential amendment if we could come back to it after we do later clauses? Is that possible?
The Chair: Is it agreed we'll return to clause 4 before we conclude the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Okay, shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Watt: Not on this side.
Senator Moore: On division.
The Chair: Clause six is carried on division. Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Watt: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Watt: On division.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Dyck: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. I'll take your advice on that, Senator Dyck. Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dyck: On division.
Senator Moore: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Dyck: And I'll just say one little thing on this. I was going to comment on all these clauses, but we're talking about how wonderful this bill is because it's allowing bands to create their own bylaws, but it was pointed out to us that most of the power making of the bylaws that they are going to be allowed to have without getting ministerial approval is pretty trivial. It has nothing to do with money. Money bylaws will not be included in this particular provision, so it ain't what we purport that it is. That's all I want to say.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Dyck: May as well — I'm on a roll here — make another comment here. This is the clause that deals with trading and selling agricultural products. Again, it's an archaic provision. Some of these provisions are either rescinded by ministerial order or by policy are not enacted, so again, trivial and sort of almost meaningless provisions.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck.
Moving along, shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: On division.
Senator Dyck: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Dyck: Another comment. This one to me is a bit odd because it's allowing seizure of goods, so seizure of goods from a reserve maybe is not to the greatest benefit to a First Nation. That's all.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck. Shall clause 12 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dyck: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 13 carry?
Senator Dyck: On division.
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Dyck: Okay, so now I have amendments for the subsequent clauses, 14 to 18, and those are in your package starting I think at No. 11.
The Chair: No. 11 to No. 15. Okay, thanks for organizing this, Senator Dyck.
So it's agreed that we will look at the proposed amendments of Senator Dyck on pages 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the materials she's distributed together as a whole?
Senator Dyck: Yes.
The Chair: Do you want to move those, then, Senator Dyck, please? And feel free to speak to them.
Senator Dyck: I'll do them together. I had separated them out, but basically I move that Bill C-428 be amended in clauses 14 to 18 on page 4 by deleting lines 8 and I guess it would go then through to lines 36, and on page 5 by deleting lines 1 to 4.
The Chair: Senator Dyck, forgive me. I'm advised by the clerk that we do have to deal with them one at a time.
Senator Dyck: One by one, okay.
The Chair: Amendments will have to be dealt with one at a time. Clauses I think you can lump, but amendments not.
Senator Dyck: The other procedural thing was we can also do this by voting down each clause instead of proposing an amendment, that we just say we vote to delete it, right? No?
Ms. Zlotnick: Well, if the chair puts the question and you vote to delete it, then he just makes a determination as to whether the vote carries or not.
Senator Dyck: So one by one?
Ms. Zlotnick: Yes.
Senator Dyck: Okay, so the first one, then, would be:
That Bill C-428 be amended in clause 14, on page 4, by deleting lines 8 to 12.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Raine: Clarification, when you delete those, what is left of clause 14?
Senator Dyck: We're dealing with clause 14.
Senator Raine: When you delete those lines, what is left of clause 14?
Senator Dyck: Nothing.
Senator Raine: So it's gone.
Ms. Zlotnick: Okay, I misunderstood your question. Yes, so you're correct, the appropriate thing would be to vote down the clause rather than make the amendment. So maybe perhaps the chair should just put the question on that clause.
The Chair: So I understand, Senator Dyck, you're recommending that the committee vote not to carry clause 14?
Senator Dyck: Right. So all the remaining amendments I have are essentially deleting clauses 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
The Chair: To respect that wish of yours, I'm going to ask for each clause, "Shall the clause carry . . ." and yea or nay.
Senator Dyck: Right. I would like to make general comments before we call for the vote.
The Chair: Please.
Senator Dyck: The reason for this is that clauses 14 to 18 in Bill C-428 are duplicated in Bill C-33, the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Bill, which we know is put on hold by the minister and is a government bill.
The repeal of the clauses in the Indian Act pertaining to education was announced by the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Chuck Strahl, in 2010. They're actually posted on the AANDC website that says this is what the government is going to do.
Given these promises and the government commitment, it is odd that Minister Duncan has provided support to this private member's bill. When he was minister he said he supported this. So you have a government initiative and an apology, and yet you have a private member's bill bringing forth what was promised as a government promise.
In addition to that, to me it was brought up that Mr. Clarke is First Nation, and to me it's troubling that if he's talking about taking out these contentious things regarding education, and residential schools in particular, he did not consult with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission commissioners because they are the ones who were tasked with the reconciliation and healing around residential schools, and part of the intention of these clauses is to get rid of mention of and the future possibility of any residential schools.
I would think that with respect to what has gone on with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the initial promise that it would be government action, and the current sort of relationship between First Nation leaders and the government, it should be a government initiative rather than a private member's bill. Removal of these sections is largely symbolic, and I think that the symbolism and the importance of something like this should belong to the government and should not be assigned to a private member. That's why I think these clauses should be taken out of the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck.
With that, then, I will ask the committee: Shall clause 14 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Watt: Did I hear no on that side?
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Watt: I think I did.
Senator Wallace: No, you didn't.
The Chair: And I think you spoke to clause 15 to 18, Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: Yes, I did.
Senator Raine: Are you asking shall the clause carry or shall the amendment to delete the clause be carried?
The Chair: Senator Dyck has not moved any amendments. She has just recommended that clauses 14 through 18 be defeated, which would be in effect a deletion of the clause.
So I will now ask: Shall clause 15 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 16 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 17 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 18 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Now there is a clause we're going to go back to, Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: That's unnecessary because that would only have been necessary had we actually deleted those clauses. It was a coordinating amendment. If we deleted those clauses, we would have needed to have changed clause 4. It's no longer necessary.
Ms. Zlotnick: We have to return to it because we postponed it.
The Chair: We did postpone clause 4, so I will now ask the committee: Shall clause 4 be carried?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Dyck: I have an amendment for the preamble.
The Chair: An amendment is proposed.
Senator Dyck: You thought you were done.
The Chair: An amendment is proposed for the preamble. Is it agreed we will continue to consider these amendments?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dyck: Well, I would hope so.
The Chair: I'm just looking at the time, so I just want to make sure.
Senator Raine: She is proposing one.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I missed clause 1, which contains the short title.
Senator Dyck: Well, that comes next, after the preamble; right?
Ms. Zlotnick: Because it was postponed, it ended up in this order. However —
The Chair: We'll do the preamble now.
Ms. Zlotnick: It's fine.
The Chair: So, Senator Dyck, could you outline your amendment to the preamble, which is being circulated, please?
Senator Dyck: Yes. I want to move:
That Bill C-428 be amended in the preamble, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 12 with the following:
"the modern and treaty relationship between it and the"; and
(b) by replacing line 17 with the following:
"legislation in consultation with the First".
Essentially that would change it so that "treaty relationship" is more specific. The word "modern" is ambiguous. It has no legal meaning, whereas "treaty relationship" describes a legal relationship between First Nations and the government, not just the numbered treaties but all treaties. As we've all heard throughout the evening, "consultation" is a term which has more legal weight than "collaboration."
And in the preamble to the bill, which has no legal force, we should at least acknowledge that it should be consultation. According to the Constitution, as my colleagues to the left know far better than myself, First Nations are entitled to consultation by section 35.
The Chair: So the amendment is No. 1 on the amendments that were circulated, colleagues.
To the amendment: Does everyone have it? It's No. 1 in the lower left-hand corner.
Senator Dyck: It's near the bottom of your pile.
The Chair: To the amendment. Hearing no speakers, I'll ask the committee and put the question, in amendment to the preamble, Honourable Senator Dyck moved an amendment:
That Bill C-428 be amended in the preamble, on page 1,
(a) by replacing line 12 with the following:
"the modern and treaty relationship between it and the"; and
(b) by replacing line 17 with the following:
"legislation in consultation with the First".
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Ms. Zlotnick: Can you make a call?
The Chair: I think the nays have it.
Senator Sibbeston: I never heard a nay.
Senator Raine: I said no.
Senator Enverga: I said no.
Senator Sibbeston: Now I do, but it's a critical point. I don't think anybody said —
The Chair: I heard some nos. Would you like me to have a vote by hand, Senator Sibbeston?
Senator Dyck: Let's vote on the next two. What the heck, take a recorded vote on this one and the next one, because we're almost at the end.
The Chair: Well, I'll declare the amendment defeated.
Senator Dyck: Call a vote, record it.
The Chair: Are there any other amendments to the preamble?
Senator Dyck: No.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Moore: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Dyck: I have an amendment which is sub 1.1, and it's No. 2 on your list, I think.
That Bill C-428 be amended, on page 1, by adding after line 24 the following:
"INTERPRETATION
1.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.".
I've been on this committee, I don't know, eight or nine years, and this is a non-derogation clause that we typically insert into bills affecting First Nations because it's a protection of their constitutional rights. We did have a couple of witnesses who said they are protected and thought perhaps that wasn't necessary, but all First Nation witnesses ask for it, and there's no harm in asking.
Senator Watt: And no harm putting it in, either.
Senator Dyck: That's right, no harm putting it in, either. It is especially important since the first amendment was defeated. It's important because First Nations want to be consulted, and that's part of their constitutional right, and they weren't, they say, consulted on this bill. And as my honourable colleague Senator Watt has said, this bill is going to lead to further processes, so it's important that this be inserted to ensure that the rights of First Nations in the future will be protected.
And some of our witnesses did even say — I think it was Mr. Peach — that it's good to have a reminder of the constitutional rights, although it's in the Constitution. Theoretically, they should be protected, but we know as a matter of fact that they are not, and so it's good to have a reminder within the bill itself.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Dyck, for the amendment.
So it's been in amendment to the motion that clause 1 carry. The Honourable Senator Dyck moved:
That Bill C-428 be amended, on page 1, by adding after line 24 the following:
"INTERPRETATION
1.1 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.".
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, that the motion in amendment carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I believe the "nays" have it. The amendment is defeated. Are there any other amendments to clause 1?
Senator Dyck: No.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Dyck: No.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Dyck: No.
The Chair: An observation has been proposed that I will read and that will be circulated, and I think Senator Ngo referred to this earlier.
The observation reads:
We recommend that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, recognizing the significant work done and contributions made by the House of Commons and Senate committees whose mandate pertains to Aboriginal Affairs, report in writing to both committees in the first 10 sitting days on the work done to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.
Senator Dyck: I would recommend that if we accept this we should also put in to do proper consultation. The observations have no legal weight. I mean, some people read them, but if we're going to put this in, it isn't just the reference to the Senate. The issue of consultation is central to the issue as well.
Senator Watt: Mr. Chairman, if I might.
The Chair: Just if I may, Senator Watt, before that. Senator Dyck, you're suggesting that there be a reference to consultation in the observation?
Senator Dyck: I'm putting that out as an idea.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Dyck: We can discuss, and perhaps Senator Watt has something to add to that.
The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to be clear what you were recommending.
Senator Dyck: I said if we were to accept this, I would say that we should also say something about consultation.
Senator Sibbeston: Isn't that all in the words "and consultation done"?
Senator Dyck: No, to ensure proper consultation. Senator Watt, were you waiting?
The Chair: Senator Watt, please.
Senator Watt: Thank you. I know what you're doing putting forward the observation. As we all know, you say it and it disappears the same day. Nobody is ever going to look at this observation. Nobody ever does.
If we lay out an observation based on what was proposed by the critic of this bill from this side, and all those amendments that were brought forward, if they are stipulated as part of the observation, we might consider it. But I'm not saying that — well, I know for a fact that I have no voting rights, so I probably have no business saying that, but anyway, I have a right to speak.
You are dealing with people that require some very clear crafting and sensitivity, and this is not what's happening, unfortunately. With all due respect, I cannot personally accept those observations because it just doesn't really say anything. It doesn't mean anything to us. And I think the people in the general public of Canada are watching us.
Senator Dyck: Yes, they are.
Senator Watt: The Aboriginal groups are watching us and listening to us very carefully to see whether their representations are actually representing them properly. That's very important. That's our job. That's our duty. What we're doing here, as far as I'm concerned, ever since we sat down here, it's one-sided, absolutely one-sided.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt. Senator Wallace?
Senator Wallace: Chair, I just want to clarify, in order for an observation to be included as part of our report on this bill, would there have to be consensus among all members at the table as opposed to voting, as we have done on the amendments in the particular clauses? In order for an observation to be included, would there have to be consensus — in other words, agreement — among all of us? Senator Watt has made it clear he does not agree, and if it's the case that we need consensus, we don't have it.
I just want to clarify what process we're following here in dealing with this observation.
The Chair: I think technically, Senator Wallace, we could vote as to whether there would be observations. In my experience generally, there has been an effort made to achieve consensus on that.
Senator Wallace: So having said that, chair, where are we going with this particular observation? Are we going to vote or are we going to require consensus?
The Chair: Well, we're just discussing it right now. There are several options. Sometimes committees go in camera to discuss observations. I have also seen committees refer the matter of consultations to the steering committee to see if a consensus can be reached on observations. I will take direction from the committee.
Senator Raine: I am looking at the document that was so nicely provided by Senate counsel — at the top of page 2.
The Chair: The Law Clerk.
Senator Raine: You can see what happened with a previous bill, C-474, and how the bill was actually approved by subsequent legislation. We might consider doing a similar approach.
Senator Dyck: They only did that because of the pressure of time; and I don't think we have the pressure of time here.
The Chair: Senator Dyck, did I understand that you would recommend that there be some addition of words relating to consultation and the observation might be acceptable to you?
Senator Dyck: I'm reconsidering that after hearing what Senator Watt said and wondering if we might put in a minority observation. Something like, "We are concerned that the constitutional rights of First Nations with regard to the consultation have not been included in this bill . . ." It would be as a minority report. Can we do that?
The Chair: The clerk tells me that the committee —
Senator Watt: What do you mean? We can come up with the independent report from this caucus as a member of the group. Couldn't we do that?
Senator Dyck: I thought they did that in Social Affairs.
The Chair: Can you advise us, madam clerk?
Senator Sibbeston: Oftentimes an observation is the result of a compromise to show there have been differences of opinion with regard to a bill. It is like an appeasement, to a certain extent. It is like giving us a few little crumbs. We didn't succeed in the amendments that we wanted, so an observation is like giving us a few little crumbs. In this case, the crumb is only a report to the Senate. It is hardly a crumb, and doesn't include consultation. It is not much of a crumb that you are giving us. It is not worth it. Keep it.
It is the same old story. We try our best, as Aboriginal people, to represent our people and to make improvements. Invariably, we're stopped. That's the history of our country, to a certain extent. We're a microcosm of Canada right here. What happened today? We have views and we think we're right because we're Aboriginal people; and you think otherwise, so you defeat us. We don't make much progress. We make some progress, but we don't make as much progress as we could. So it is frustrating. We have had this dozens of times.
What do you do? Go home and quit? Go home and say you're defeated again? What would it have taken for you to come along with us? You could have, but you didn't.
Senator Tannas: I can't let that stand, Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: You can't what? I can't hear you.
Senator Tannas: I can't let that stand. First, we are here to pass a bill that has been through the House of Commons, written and proposed by a member of the First Nations who is elected.
We have explained clearly our issues. We heard all kinds of testimony about this bill and its intentions being honourable and laudable. We have spent hours talking about things. In my view, and I was persuaded by the expert opinions, none of the things that we have debated here were central to the intention of the bill. We have also explained to you our view and subsequently had a little meeting here to determine that if we send it back with the amendments, we stand a very good chance of never seeing this bill again.
For you to say what you just said and make this somehow a First Nations-White guy issue, I'm offended by that.
Senator Sibbeston: Well, be offended because hundreds of people would be offended because it is a classic situation. There's nothing sacred or holy about this bill coming from the House of Commons and the fact that it originated from a First Nation. Our role as senators is to improve it. We came forth with improvements. The word "collaboration" is a weasel word that has no meaning. "Consultation" would have been a much better word, yet you refused to give in even on that point.
With respect to consulting, giving the information to the Senate, how hard is it to change it? In many little ways, it would have improved it. But you didn't want to. So here we are. We have a bill that, as I say, will be an improvement in the lives of Aboriginal people in our country, but it could have been better with the help of First Nations people here. You don't. You stifle us and stop us at every opportunity we have.
Should we just quit? What's our purpose here? It is an Aboriginal Peoples committee. There's one, two, three, four Aboriginal people. The rest of you are White people, and —
Senator Tannas: That's what I'm talking about.
Senator Sibbeston: Give us some credence. Give us some credit, because your failure to do so is what has happened in our country. Native people don't know enough. You know better. White man knows better. So here we are, stymied to a certain extent. You create frustration and ill feeling.
The Chair: Senator Sibbeston, thank you. You have made your point very clearly.
Colleagues, I'm going to take the chair's prerogative and recommend that we continue this discussion in camera from here. The meeting will go in camera, and we will continue.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: It looks like I'm going to have to get agreement to report the bill to the Senate. I neglected to do that. And then we have a budget item to consider, and maybe I can just speak to that.
The first item would be to conclude the discussion on Bill C-428. Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Colleagues, another item on the agenda we need to discuss, you should have before you a very short budget which relates to our upcoming report on housing. The steering committee felt it was desirable to have a product that would be graphically designed, making it more visually appealing than a plain text report, more user-friendly and therefore more likely to receive the attention that we feel it deserves.
The total budget comes in at $16,250, which is based on an average of estimates received from graphic design companies the Senate has contracts with.
Are there any questions about this?
Senator Moore: Aside from the numbers here, we're going to do the written report; the staff is going to put that together, and there will be figures and probably tables. Are we looking at having a design company do something that's going to be catching in terms of the cover and/or the contents?
The Chair: Both. I don't know if you saw the report on the pharmaceuticals. The Social Affairs Committee just tabled a report. It had an executive summary that was done very graphically on good-quality paper. Do we have one of those here?
Ms. Zlotnick: I didn't bring one, I'm sorry.
The Chair: Unfortunately, but the steering committee —
Senator Moore: Looked at that, okay.
The Chair: — examined that. There is a short list of companies that will assist the committee to do that. It will give the report real punch. There's an executive summary that would be especially useful in this graphic design format. Other committees have done this.
Senator Moore: Is the figure pretty much in keeping with what other committees have had to pay?
Ms. Zlotnick: Yes. We have three providers that are under contract with the Senate, so we got a quote.
Senator Moore: From each?
Ms. Zlotnick: We didn't get a quote from each. We got a quote from the first one we have to use, which is the least expensive but then we indexed up, because if our first choice isn't available we have to go with the next.
We basically made sure that whichever one of the providers we had to go with we would be able to cover the costs for the report.
Senator Moore: So it could be less, depending.
Ms. Zlotnick: It could be less.
The Chair: We all want to make this report have impact.
Senator Moore: Absolutely. I hope that Senator Sibbeston gives us all a chance to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Raine: There's tremendous graphic contrast from what we saw. The aerial shot of Ahousaht, for instance, is beautiful, and then the close-up shot of the decrepit housing — from the air it looks wonderful but when you get up close you see the difficulties.
We need to use photographs well. A photograph tells a thousand words. I always remember, was it Sandy Lake where we went and there was that family living in the log house that was sinking and the walls were all crooked, but everything around it was just so well kept and they were such beautiful people. It's hard to describe that in words, but these things have to come through in the report.
The Chair: Yes, and we've got the pictures. We did our work on the ground, colleagues.
Senator Moore: You want a motion, chair?
The Chair: Senator Moore, would you move?
Senator Moore: Yes.
The Chair: Senator Moore that the following supplementary budget application for the special study, "Challenges and Potential Solutions Relating to First Nations Infrastructure on Reserves," be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration — general expenses, $16,250; total, $16,250 — and that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be authorized to make final edits and to prove the final budget submission.
All in favour?
Senator Moore: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Carried. Thank you.
Colleagues, that brings us to a close. We are scheduled to spend our next session in camera considering drafting instructions for our report, so we will ask the clerk to arrange that as a priority for our next meeting next week.
Senator Moore: That's number 3 we're going to defer to next week.
The Chair: We will have to defer the drafting instructions. I'm not going to ask anyone to stay beyond now.
Senator Dyck: Nobody is going to stay.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you all for your participation in this important meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)