Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. I think I have the clarification.

Ms. Idlout, the first point I'll make is that we're not going to go back to NDP-4.02. What I understand is that you may have seen a connection between what NDP-4.02 in clause 7 was trying to deal with and clause 14. I'll simply say that in your amendment NDP-4.02, what was beyond the scope of the legislation was the new concept of indigenous right or title. That is why it was deemed inadmissible. That wasn't challenged, so that ruling stands for NDP-4.02.

I don't know if you see a link to clause 14, which is what we're on, but the idea was that it was going larger than what this legislation referenced, specifically treaties in the provisions of this act and any other regulations and so on. I'm not seeing a direct connection, and if you'd like to help me connect that, please do. However, that's why it was ruled out of order. Any amendments you had that added in that content were deemed out of order because they were beyond the scope of the legislation that was originally put forward by the government.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The way that I read clause 14, I understand that it's directly relating to a tax treatment agreement and how a tax treatment agreement does not form part of a treaty. When Mr. Viersen was asking his questions, it helped me remember that I wanted to make amendments regarding how treaties are viewed and how title and rights are viewed.

Because this clause talks about what's in the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution, I thought my amendment NDP-4.02 was helping to highlight that to help make it specifically clear. We heard from witnesses that this will not impact first nations rights and will not impact lands, territories and resources. What I was trying to do with my amendment was to make that specifically clear, and for it to have been ruled out of scope made it confusing. It seems to be an indication that if we're going to be talking about treaty-making with Métis in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, we need to be able to assure the first nations and the Métis in Alberta, for example, that their treaties won't be impacted. That's what I thought I was trying to do with NDP-4.02, which was ruled out of scope.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, I understand what you were trying to do. The point is that it has been ruled out of scope and that ruling was supported because it goes beyond the scope of what was in the legislation. That's where we're at—it is out of scope. Therefore, we have the wording in clause 14 that references “treaty”. It's under “Taxation” and “Tax treatment agreements”. Specifically in clause 14 we're talking about a tax treatment agreement not being part of a treaty and it's not a treaty or a land claims agreement within the sections. Those are very much the parameters around this clause.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

In terms of the potential interpretation of this bill—and I know that's going into a grey area—what I tried to do with my amendment is make sure that we're not creating a grey area. It just seems that with clause 14, if it's going to be talking about how it doesn't form a treaty or a land claim, there is a meaning already identified in sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act. Why could we not explicitly state that this will not impact first nations or Métis in Alberta's lands, territories and resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to turn to our officials to see whether they would like to offer comment on the last point that Ms. Idlout made.

[Julia Redmond]

The kind of provision that could ensure some comfort that this bill wouldn't impact the rights of others is the kind of amendment this committee discussed, and then voted in favour of, before we wrapped up in December. The types of non-derogation provisions that were tabled already would achieve what you are describing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Lori, did you want to explore that any further? I have others on my speaking list. I can go to the others and then come back to you, if you'd like.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I don't know that I'll get the information I need to be able to vote in favour of this clause. I think we're at an impasse. I don't know whether we'll be able to get past this if we're rushing through it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Well, I'm allowing time for a discussion, so if you have other questions for clarification, I'm happy to provide that.

I'll leave you for now and go to Monsieur Lemire, who's next, and then Mr. Battiste. Then we can come back to you, Ms. Idlout, if you'd like.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Meegwetch.

Thank you for the warm welcome. I think that this committee will be particularly interesting. You can count on my support to advance the rights and causes of the first nations in Quebec and Canada.

I have no objection to what has just been said. However, I wonder whether it would be appropriate to amend the preamble to include this information. I'd like to add this to our discussion.

I raised my hand to speak simply to ask for clarification, which can be in writing. I have many questions. I'm the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We're located on the border between Quebec and Ontario. The Anishinabe communities cover an area shared by Quebec and Ontario. This has an impact, of course. A number of Anishinabe communities in our area have shared their opposition to this bill, given the potential impact on their land claims and their ability to represent their land independently.

Could you provide a written outline of the mechanisms that will be implemented to discuss arrangements and issues relating to land recognition? For the Métis, historically, it has been more difficult to identify their own land and the associated general rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

A few questions come to mind.

What happens when these arrangements conflict with the treaties and inherent rights of first nations, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, self‑government agreements and outstanding land claims?

What happens if an indigenous nation opposes development agreements that directly affect first nations' communities, land or jurisdictions?

It seems that we're opening doors that could remain open for decades. In a mining area such as my region, communities often reach agreements. Of course, federal legislation requires that we reach agreements with the first nations. However, this factor is also significant for the mining industry. The industry must consult the first nations concerned to reach a land‑sharing agreement and perhaps then even grant a form of land compensation.

The bill could create a particularly worrying gap in a border area such as my region. It would have an impact as soon as the border is crossed. My colleague, who sat on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs before me, asked the minister a question about this matter. The minister acknowledged that it could ultimately affect Quebec, even if Quebec weren't identified.

Hence the importance of clarifying, in writing if possible, the mechanisms that will be implemented.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I don't know whether the officials would like to offer any comment on that.

We've had a request for some clarification in writing. If you would like to speak on that, I'm happy to allow that. Otherwise, I'll go to my next speaker.

[Michael Schintz]

Mr. Chair, I'm thinking that, because you specifically requested something in writing, I don't know that it's helpful for me to offer any comments. That's my immediate thought.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Perfect. We'll move on. It's noted.

I have Mr. Battiste on my list next.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important to reflect. I know it's been a while. We've been away from the witness testimony. However, it's very important that, when we're talking about this legislation, we're talking about the internal governance of the Métis of three provinces. This is citizenship. This is governance. This is ratification. This is not lands. This is not resources. In fact, the minister, when he was here, said those things were “not contemplated in the legislation.” What we want to do is figure out a way to protect...so people understand this is not going to impact their rights, whether it be lands, resources, fishing or hunting.

That's why we put in a non-derogation clause. In fact, Lori, it was your NDP-2, which we all voted in favour of. I can read the exact words:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

When I'm looking at clause 14 on this, it is also very consistent with that language, saying this is not a treaty of lands. My understanding is that pulling in lands, resources, hunting and fishing is not in contemplation of what's in the scope of this legislation. If we start adding things that were never discussed or part of the intention of this legislation, it makes it out of scope.

I would almost venture to say that, if I started bringing up Métis in other provinces, outside of Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, that, too, would be out of scope for this legislation, because the intention of this legislation is to cover just these three provinces and speak to the internal governance of these areas.

Moving forward, I think clause 14, which we're currently on, is consistent with what we've already said and all agreed to in NDP-2. Without any amendments, I think it's ready to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Next, I have Mr. Viersen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments are not so much on this clause, other than the fact that perhaps Ms. Idlout and myself should get an amendment sorted out. I think we could add another clause between clause 14 and clause 15, one that would just say “lands”, just to be clear that this treaty that's going to be entered into does not include lands or speculation about land claims.

I would love to hear Ms. Idlout on that. Perhaps we could do something like that, make a separate section with a big title called “lands”. I think that would be a tidy way to manage this.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have Ms. Idlout next on my list.

Would you like to comment?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I still feel like I'm a brand new MP, although I know it has been a couple of years. I was quite surprised by what we heard. In my initial meetings with the presidents of the three Métis nations, I was told there would not be any opposition to this bill because it was something that had been a long time coming, something we needed to acknowledge, and I completely agree that the Métis have a right to self-government. What I'm shocked by is how much opposition we heard from first nations and even other Métis.

Having heard those kinds of things was why I ended up submitting NDP-4.02, which would help alleviate those concerns.

To make it specifically clear, in addition to the two amendments that I'm very thankful the whole committee agreed to about the non-derogation clauses, what I had hoped for with NDP-4.02 was to make it explicitly clear. The reason I bring it to this discussion of clause 14 is that it does talk about treaties and land claims. The part where I'm still new to this is that I don't understand how rulings work—the ruling behind my amendment being out of scope without a real explanation as to why is what confuses me.

Getting that kind of clarification would be very helpful, because I feel like NDP-4.02 and clause 14 are connected in such a way that we are, yes, respecting treaty rights, that we are not talking about land claims and that we're not talking about implications to first nations or to other Métis where they already have land in Alberta, for example.

I just want to clarify that. It seems, if you're just going to sustain your decision about NDP-4.02, then that's, I guess, what we have to be left with.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I just want to clarify what specifically your question is. I'm trying to understand if it's procedural or if it's content. Could you specifically give me what you're looking for?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I guess, even if I worked with Mr. Viersen on his suggestion to make an amendment, the fact is that it might end up being too similar to NDP-4.02, and it will probably be ruled out of scope. I am willing at this point to agree to working with him to make an amendment to that effect.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

What I'm hearing, Ms. Idlout—correct me if I'm wrong—is that you're looking at making an amendment. Is it to clause 14? I also heard Mr. Viersen say something about doing something between clauses 14 and 15.

I don't know if you're asking us to suspend. If you want a new clause, you could develop it and come back. It would be a new amendment, I believe. We could then stand clause 14, if you are looking at an amendment, and carry on with clause 15, if that's what you're asking for, to buy some time. Otherwise, without anything before me, I would normally just call clause 14 and have the vote on it. If it carries, it carries. Then we would move on to clause 15.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but help me understand if you want to amend clause 14. I'm just trying to understand what you'd like to do, to help us find a path forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Maybe we should suspend, because I do want to work with Mr. Viersen on making an amendment before getting to clause 15.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm just looking to see if clause 15 has the same issue. Could we stand clauses 14 and 15 and move on to clause 16, instead of simply suspending?

We have another hour in the meeting today. If the committee would agree to stand clauses 14 and 15, we can consider an amendment to be brought back to you. It would have to be within scope. You could give it to us, and then we'll rule whether it's in scope or not. I'd hate to lose another hour if we can move beyond clauses 14 and 15, which seem to be where there's some contention at this moment.

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

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

It's just something to maybe add to the conversation or just to hear myself talk.

Once Bill C-53 passes, it then puts into effect, in essence, the agreements that were signed between the three organizations and the government.

Right at the beginning of chapter 12, on page 31, it reads, “The Parties are committed to negotiations with a view to reaching a self-government Treaty within two years after the Effective Date”.

I think it's important to realize that Ms. Idlout and Mr. Viersen kind of opened the door to.... There are some legal ramifications after Bill C-53 happens that, through the treaty process, may or may not include that. I'm not saying it does, but if it does, if I get the conversation, I think what they're looking at is to maybe put some barriers in that allow those who have opposing views on this legislation to have some comfort, if you will—if that's the right choice of words.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll turn to our officials to see if they'd like to offer comment on Mr. Schmale's interpretation.