Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay. Is there a situation that you can point to where conflict between...?

If this has been in a number of treaty implementation acts, has this ever been pointed to or used in any situation?

[Julia Redmond]

I don't have any examples to give you on that right now. If it's an issue we can try to provide more information later. I can tell you that this is a very standard provision and it appears in all implementing statutes.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

We don't know if it has ever been used before, so to speak.

Can anyone else comment?

[Blake McLaughlin, Director General, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

I don't think we have anything further to add.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Okay.

To go back to this, Mr. Chair, I think we should delete this out of the bill, because it's redundant in the fact that treaties come with constitutional backing. I think that's important. Also, I like to have Parliament being supreme in this country and ensure that we don't tip the scales. If there is a conflict, there are mechanisms for conflict resolution in this country that have been used and continue to be used. Many times there are political solutions to these as well.

To outsource our job, which as parliamentarians is to make decisions on things, to a treaty when there's a conflict.... We need to ensure that we can have that. I would say that we should pass this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Schmale, you're next on my list.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Great.

Through you, Chair, to the officials, just so I'm clear here, if there are two treaties, say a first nations one and a Métis one and they come into conflict, what happens at that point? Would court action be required to set that out, or is that up to Parliament to figure out? Would the courts say it's Parliament's job?

[Julia Redmond]

That's not actually covered by this provision. “Treaty”, when used in this provision here, is treaty in the meaning that's defined in the bill, a treaty between Canada and one of the Métis governments listed in this schedule, the Métis collectivities listed in the schedule of this bill.

This doesn't address that scenario of the potential conflict between different treaties. The bill is silent on that.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I appreciate your leniency as we wait for....

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen does have his name on the list. We can go back to Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Could we just get a bit of clarity around whether there is a mechanism around the concerns around treaty conflicts?

Is there a mechanism anywhere for that?

[Julia Redmond]

Negotiation is one possible way. Treaties themselves could contain provisions that could account for that. Again, that's outside the scope of this bill. We're not talking about conflicts between different treaties. This provision concerns specifically the relationship between these treaties addressed by this bill and the act itself.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

All right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're now going to vote on CPC-3.1.

We'll have a recorded vote on this.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have next NDP-4.02. I'll ask the member to move NDP-4.02.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to adopt NDP-4.02

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

I have some thoughts on this that I would like to share. This is a ruling from the chair.

Subclause 7(1) of the bill provides that, if there are inconsistencies or conflicts between the treaty and an act of Parliament, the provisions of the treaty will prevail insofar as those inconsistencies or conflicts are concerned. The amendment adds that, in the event of inconsistencies or conflicts with an indigenous right or title, the right or title will also prevail.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the aforementioned element is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

Shall clause 7 carry?

[An hon. member]

Let's have a recorded vote.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Can we challenge the chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I already called clause 7.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I would challenge the chair on that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. There's a challenge to the chair.

I'm calling the vote on clause 7. If you sustain the chair's ruling, we will vote on clause 7. If you do not sustain the chair's ruling, it means we won't vote on clause 7.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Before we move to clause 8, Mr. Viersen has a point of order.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I don't have it in front of me, but I am pretty sure that, when a clause is moved, there is time for discussion or at least to ask questions of the officials on a particular clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's not a point of order, but I will explain.

The way I work is that I'll call a clause and, if I see hands, I'll create a speaking list. In the absence of any hands, I won't have a speaking list and we'll move on to the vote. That's what I'm watching for—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

What I don't have clear—and this is the point of order, Mr. Chair—is that there does not seem to be an opportunity between the movement of a clause, which I understand is kind of an automatic thing and.... How do I know when the clause is being moved and the question is being called? You are simultaneously moving and calling the question, and there is no opportunity for me.... Suddenly, we're on clause 7 and you're calling the question.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]