Yes.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What kinds of laws are anticipated around that?
4:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Some of the jurisdictions that would be covered, as we've discussed throughout this process, are contemplated in the agreements that were signed in February 2023. Those are matters relating to self-government and to things like citizenship, elections and internal matters.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Okay.
I imagine that this piece, much like a bunch of the other pieces in this bill, is giving clarity to that. This would be precluded regardless of if there were a treaty signed and if it were allowed for these kinds of things. That would be allowed anyway, but are we just giving clarity to that fact with this?
4:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
If I understand your question correctly, it's very standard for the jurisdictions that would be covered in a treaty to be acknowledged in this way, in an implementing statute for those treaties.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Okay, but it's assumed as well. If this weren't there, would that still continue?
4:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
The treaties themselves will also spell this out, yes.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
That line of questioning just confused me a little bit, because this is talking about a treaty, but your response was in relation to the agreements that were assigned, which I understand are not treaties.
4:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
That's correct. Within the text of those agreements, it contemplates that they will be replaced by treaties. It's essentially saying, “Here is what we will negotiate in the treaties”.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm sorry.
Could you remind us again about at least some of the bigger-picture information that was in those agreements? It's important to understand that when we're thinking of clause 9.
4:35 p.m.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I'm happy to do that.
The agreements are contracts. Those contracts commit us to negotiate treaties. The treaties will be implemented through these agreements. Those treaties will deal with certain law-making powers. The specific law-making powers that we commit to be negotiating in those treaties include the determination of citizenship, elections or leadership selection, internal administration and operations of the government, and the adjudication of violations of those specific law-making powers.
There's a process for amendment as well.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
4:40 p.m.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
No land-related or resource-related jurisdictions are contemplated in those treaties.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What's interesting about these agreements that are signed is that they're mentioned only in the preamble. I guess it's an awkward thing. Is there no way to reference those agreements here? Is there a need to do that?
It's just interesting. Why are these agreements the basis for this, and yet this legislation is required as the basis on which to implement the agreements? There's a chicken-and-egg thing happening.
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
The treaties will supersede the agreements. That's the intention.
Given that the bill is addressing the coming into force of those treaties, referencing both an agreement that will be spent once it's replaced as well as the agreement that replaces it would cause confusion down the line. We're dealing just with the treaties here. The agreements are a step on the way to those treaties.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I have no one else on the speaking list.
We'll call the vote on clause 9.
(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(On clause 10)
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll move now to clause 10. At this point we have no amendments to clause 10.
Mr. Viersen, you're first on my list.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This one's kind of an interesting one.