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

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

Okay.

If that's the case, Mr. Chair, that makes my amendment kind of redundant. I think I'll leave that alone for the time being.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. Thank you.

We're not going to be moving CPC-5.1. Therefore, is there any further discussion on clause 20, unamended?

(Clause 20 agreed to on division)

On clauses 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, we have no amendments. Does anybody want to speak to any of those? That's the first question.

If nobody wants to speak to any of them, would you be open to voting on them together, or do you want to vote separately on each of the next five clauses?

We have a request to vote separately.

(On clause 21)

First of all, is there any debate on clause 21?

Mr. Vidal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just need some clarification from the officials so that I understand.

The explanation we got from the clerks and the Library of Parliament was that this would basically allow the Métis governments to enact things before a treaty is actually enacted that would be valid if they would have been valid under the treaty, so something that happens prior to the treaty being in place would be legitimate.

Is that basically the context of this?

[Julia Redmond]

More or less, yes.

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

Can you clarify if it's not? I'm sorry.

[Julia Redmond]

Your understanding is accurate. This kind of provision is used for technical matters under a treaty, so it's for things like ensuring that a ratification vote on a treaty is recognized.

The ratification would need to happen before the treaty is in force, but the treaty needs to recognize the legitimacy of the ratification, so it's for that technical type of category.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Is there any other discussion on clause 21?

Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I apologize, Ms. Redmond, but I missed the first half of that.

Would you mind repeating it for me?

[Julia Redmond]

No problem.

It's just to say that this is a very standard type of provision in this kind of bill. It accounts for situations where some kind of action would need to be deemed valid under a treaty. The example I gave Mr. Vidal was a ratification vote. A treaty would usually come into force following the ratification vote or other ratification procedure of an indigenous government. The treaty itself would recognize that ratification, but the ratification, necessarily, needs to happen before the treaty is in force.

It's a matter of closing that technical loop to make sure that any pieces that need to be in place before the treaty comes into force are done validly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have no one else on my speaking list.

Shall clause 21 carry?

(Clause 21 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22)

Is there any discussion on clause 22?

Mr. Viersen.

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

I imagine that, again, we're going to hear that this is just a standard thing.

We're adding “Métis governments” to the Access to Information Act. I was just wondering if the officials could explain for Canadians what that does. How does the Access to Information Act affect Métis governments?

[Julia Redmond]

You're right that this is very much a standard type of provision in this kind of statute.

Essentially, what this consequential amendment would do is add each of these Métis governments, when their treaties are in force, to the list in that statute that covers aboriginal governments. The relevant provisions basically mean that aboriginal governments are included as a category of government institution and they're treated as such for the purposes of information sharing.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Are there any other questions or discussion on clause 22?

(Clause 22 agreed to on division)

(On clause 23)

Is there any discussion on clause 23?

Go ahead, Mr. Viersen.

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

I imagine it's the same as last time with regard to the Privacy Act. Could we just get an explanation again as to how the Privacy Act will affect Métis governments? Must Métis governments abide by the Privacy Act? Is that essentially what this is saying?

[Julia Redmond]

More or less, yes. In a similar way to the Access to Information Act, this provides that those Métis governments will be treated as a category of government institution for the purposes of the terms of the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I will call the question, since I have nobody else on my speaking list.

(Clauses 23 to 25 inclusive agreed to on division)

Yes, Mr. Viersen.

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

Mr. Chair, before we go on, I don't have any objection to clause 25, but could we get a bit of an explanation as to why we have clause 25? Is it like a cleanup piece? I'm not exactly sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll turn to the officials quickly, but we did just vote on it. It was carried on division.

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

Yes. I'm not opposed to it. I would just like some clarification on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll go to the officials for a brief explanation in response to your question. Then we'll move to clause 26 and CPC-6.

[Julia Redmond]

I think the shortest answer I can give on this is that it is very much a technical amendment. It's just to account for the fact that the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act isn't in force. It's a matter of ensuring that they're not missed somehow should that act come into force, and not losing them in the list as other aboriginal governments are added to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. Nothing happens in the sense that nothing changes. It's a matter of keeping that list in order and just accounting for a potential scenario in which something that is not in force comes into force. It has no material effect on anyone at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, Mr. Viersen.

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

Mr. Chair, where can I see the Yale First Nation Final Agreement? This is new information to us. We never had any witness testimony around that. Yale First Nation never showed up.

Is this a concurrent agreement and it's going on at the same time? Is it something that happened in the past? I'm unfamiliar with this.

[Julia Redmond]

I would just briefly say that the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act has no bearing on the treaties that are contemplated by this bill or on this bill itself.