Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Vidal.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

To come back to where I was, I'm trying to figure out something definition-wise that, in my opinion, if I were going to propose an amendment, might work. As it turns out, I also have the privilege of working on the first nations water legislation and the consultation process. There are rumours that we'll hear that today. In that consultation draft of the water legislation, there's actually a definition that talks about a first nation governing body. That legislation is specific to first nations. They've actually taken a definition specifically to refer to a first nation governing body.

I can't find anything that says “Métis governing body” anywhere. The points we're talking about very clearly and your explanations have been around defining this strictly as a Métis government. My question around that would be that, if we were to change this language from “Indigenous governing body” to “Métis governing body”, and then put in a definition like in the proposed water legislation—or in the draft, as I'm not sure it'll be in the final—would there potentially be a compromise there? I'm not sure if that's the right word, but maybe it would be the compromise that leads to clarity that would satisfy the needs of, as you talked about, your partners in codevelopment.

I'm looking for a solution here. I hope you can see that from this perspective. I'm looking for an answer. Rather than draft an amendment that will get shot to heck because it doesn't meet some kind of proper process or whatever and doesn't solve the issue, I'm looking for some guidance and some input, maybe, from the table that would give me some direction as to how I might propose that, if I were to do that—if that makes sense.

I can't find an actual definition out there. Is there a definition beyond “Indigenous governing body” that is more specific here? I mean, to my understanding, this is kind of emerging stuff, with some newer terms and newer definitions. Is there a way that we can maybe approach this that would be a compromise?

[Julia Redmond]

To start, I want to turn to the terms or the content of this bill to answer your question.

We have a definition right now of Métis government that simply refers to the schedule. Then we have at clause 8, which we're discussing right now, a description that makes this reference to “Indigenous governing body” and applies the concept of a Métis government being authorized to act on behalf of a collectivity. As I said before, the content that's there essentially repeats the relevant function of this definition of “Indigenous governing body” referred to elsewhere. It applies the important notion of being authorized to act.

Including a definition for a term like that is not the only way to get that clarity. It's spelled out here in clause 8. It's not to say that a definition couldn't be included, but it would serve the same function as the text that you have before you, which is to apply this idea that a Métis government, which in this case is a category of an indigenous governing body, is authorized to act on behalf of a collectivity in the schedule.

[Martin Reiher]

Perhaps I can add to that.

In drafting, we usually include a definition in a bill when a word or an expression is used several times. Here it's just used once. The definition is actually in clause 8 itself.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm not a lawyer. Let's be clear about that. I've had to deal with legislation over my lifetime in my accounting profession, but I'm sorry. To say that it's defined here when everywhere I read there are definitions that are different, I have a hard time applying that in a practical and common-sense way where the rubber meets the road.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not trying to...but with all due respect, I don't get how it's defined there when it's just a term that's put in the middle of a clause. How am I supposed to define it when I go and look it up and good old Google takes me to all kinds of other pieces of legislation of the Government of Canada that define it very clearly? How am I not to assume that it's the same definition when that definition is broadened to include people and other groups and communities? We've had a long debate that this isn't about community, so I'm really struggling with that explanation.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm really struggling with how I'm not supposed to assume or get to the conclusion that the definition that I read everywhere else is not the one that applies here.

[Julia Redmond]

I don't think we have much more to add on this. I can repeat the previous point I've made, which is that the core concept of that definition of “Indigenous governing body” is the notion of being authorized to act on behalf of a collectivity. I think you'll see that spelled out in clause 8. Beyond that, I have nothing to add.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

In fairness, without that term there, if I read this, it says, “The Government of Canada recognizes that a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule” and then continues:

is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis collectivity set out in column 2 opposite that Métis government and that the Métis collectivity holds the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act

What have I lost?

[Julia Redmond]

I think we've spoken already to the idea that including this term for our partners is something that's very important. As I've mentioned before, it applies a term that is more and more often used in other statutes to mean the same thing.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I know Mr. Schmale wants to speak, Chair, but I just want to be clear that I want to be granted the opportunity to draft something that would be acceptable to the partners she refers to. I'll speak to them to make sure that we don't have a legislative issue with the language that you referred to before from the legislative clerk.

I just want to make sure I have the opportunity to do that, and I don't have to do it in the middle of today's meeting. If I have to do that, then I will start drafting now, but I'm not going to be able to obviously get the legislative clerk's approval on that, as we have the discussion today.

I just want to make sure that I have the opportunity to do that. If we can agree to come back to this at the next meeting or something like that, I want to make sure that's on the record, and then I'll pass to Mr. Schmale if he was next on your list.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I would say that the question is whether you would want to stand clause 8 at this point and we can move on. I do have one other person on the speaking list, if there are any further questions, but we could stand clause 8 at this point.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm happy to have the debate around the other amendments—that might actually provide some clarity—and then stand it at the end of that. I want to make sure that the opportunity's still open at that point.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Once we move beyond this discussion and get into the CPC-3.2 amendment, that will create a line conflict potentially, so we'll need to know what we're dealing with.

I think it would be in the committee's interest to either stand clause 8 or deal with whatever amendment is brought forward, and then that will tell us what other subsequent amendments are in line or not.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm sorry. Is the reverse not also true then? Just logically if we approve other amendments, then I will know whether my amendment's in conflict with the other ones? Doesn't the reverse logic apply the same? Common sense would tell me that the reverse would apply.

[Dancella Boyi, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue is a potential line conflict. Since a line can only be amended once in a bill, unless there's unanimous consent later on to revert back and reconsider it, and considering where the potential amendment you may want to make in clause 8 would occur, I would just note that there's a potential line conflict with CPC-3.2.

There may be a consideration to either stand the clause in its entirety—in order to potentially draft an amendment that would cover the lines that are currently covered by CPC-3.2 and other lines following that—or proceed with a subamendment.

If we proceed with CPC-3.2, there is a potential line conflict, which would either require unanimous consent to revert back or a subamendment.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, can I take a moment to confer with my colleague on his CPC-3.2 to see what his preference would be?

Would you just give us a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You can take a minute.

Do you want me to suspend?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes, for sure we do. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Colleagues, we'll suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're back in the meeting now.

Having caught a bit of the conversation, I'm understanding we're trying to find a way to look at clarifying the definition either in the definition section of clause 8 or in clause 2. There are actually a couple of ways forward here. I'm looking to the side to make sure I get this right. One is to ask for unanimous consent to stand clause 8, which would then allow members who would want to make an amendment to work with the legislative people to see what they may want to change.

In the piece with CPC-3.2, there could be a line conflict. To deal with that—

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

Mr. Chair, before we get to that, if you don't mind, this might be simpler. We're trying to work with others at the table to try to find that definition to see where we go with what motions and how we work on that.

At this time, I would like to move a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll call a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I was going to ask a question about resources. We have been offered resources tonight from 6:30 to 8:30. I put in a request for resources for all day tomorrow from nine to 5:30. I'm requesting resources on Wednesday from noon onward. On Thursday, we're putting in requests for resources, as well as Friday.

As I mentioned, I would like to continue to provide ample opportunity for us to continue considering this debate right up until we go home for Christmas. We've demonstrated that none of us need sleep, so if you want to go into the wee hours, I'm happy to do that. I've demonstrated I'm good to go between zero and five hours a night. Just watch as we get notices of resources. I will be communicating that to members to continue to allow us the time to have a good discussion on this before we head home to be with our families and others for the holidays.

The meeting is adjourned.