Bill C-92 (Historical)

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families

This enactment affirms the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and sets out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality.

Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do plan to split my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona

As I said, Bill C-35 would open the opportunity for a national system of early learning and child care.

A 2022 Statistics Canada study found that 38% of parents were changing their work or study schedule and 37% were working fewer hours. Bill C-35 would allow more parents to get back to work to provide for their families. This would benefit women, who are disproportionately impacted without this bill. We need Bill C-35 to become law.

The NDP will keep fighting for Canadians, unlike Conservatives, who make cuts, and Liberals who are forced to act only to avoid an election.

Today, the Conservatives tried to delay the important debate on C-35. They used a report from the 43rd parliament on food security issues as a delay tactic. They only pretend to care that nutrition north is not working. If they really cared about indigenous issues, they could have used any of their last 10 opposition day motions to debate nutrition north. Instead, they are playing games by making last minute changes to the orders of the day and obstructing important changes that could benefit many indigenous peoples, as well as the passage of Bill C-35.

I am proud that Nunavut was one of the first territories, along with Quebec and the Yukon, to commit to providing $10-a-day child care. More impressively, this milestone was achieved 15 months ahead of schedule. With the youngest population in Canada, it should come as no surprise. Ten-dollar-a-day day care does exist. Coupled with the high cost of living and other challenges, affordable child care is especially important to Nunavummiut.

Much work will be required after the passage of Bill C-35. There will need to be major investments for improving infrastructure in indigenous communities. Many first nations, Métis and Inuit communities lack the facilities for early childhood education. With crumbling buildings and overcrowded homes, there is nowhere to open a day care.

It is not just early childhood education; there is a severe infrastructure deficit across primary, intermediate and secondary schools in indigenous communities. In Pond Inlet, Arviat and many other Nunavut communities, schools are overcrowded. The communities desperately need investments in new schools. I heard from Pacheedaht First Nation members, who have to bus their children for hours in each direction because there is no school in their community. Even with existing schools, they do not have the resources to provide the same level of service as schools in non-indigenous communities do.

I take this opportunity to remind the Liberal government that it must both reverse its decision to sunset Indigenous Services Canada programs and fill the major infrastructure gaps. In combination, the lack of investments will result in over $14 billion that will force indigenous peoples onto the streets in the future. It will force indigenous peoples to remain addicted to substances and to remain on the margins of society.

The federal government must make additional investments to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis communities can build the infrastructure they need to provide culturally appropriate early childhood education.

An amendment was later added to address a potential charter issue, as minority language education is a right under section 23 of the Constitution. As parliamentarians, we have learned that there is an increasing lack of French-language child care services outside of Quebec. The amendment to clause 8 of the bill would ensure the federal government maintains funding for official language minorities. I am sure the francophone community in my riding will be very happy with this amendment. I am glad to see the amendment pass so this important legislation can go forward without potential legal challenges.

While there are two official languages in Canada, hundreds of indigenous languages remain. In order to keep indigenous languages alive, languages must be passed on to children at an early age. Governments have obligations to meet the obligations set out in the Indigenous Languages Act.

I highlight the recent court decision on Bill C-92, which was another big win for indigenous rights. Bill C-92 reaffirms Inuit, first nations and Métis rights to make decisions regarding their own children, youth and families. This includes culturally relevant child care services in their own languages.

For these reasons, I urge parliamentarians to support the passage of this bill.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji , I always appreciate my colleague's fierceness in the House. I always learn from her.

It has definitely been very disappointing to sit here since 2021 and to see the Liberal government not respect UNDRIP after passing Bill C-15. A very important aspect of UNDRIP, as she mentioned, is the importance of free, prior and informed consent. If the Liberal government, for example, had used free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in developing the Métis bill, I think first nations in Ontario would have been a lot more supportive in helping to ensure that the bill is supported by all.

I think that ensuring free, prior and informed consent is something that helps to unite all indigenous peoples. It has been quite unfortunate to see the Liberal government dividing first nations, Métis and Inuit against each other. We need to see the examples set by the Supreme Court of upholding the constitutionality of Bill C-92.

In order for us to do better for first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families, free, prior and informed consent must be at the core of our work. That is how we will make sure that our relationships are respectful, that we are working toward an overall sense of well-being for now and for the future of all of Canada. With Canada being founded on indigenous peoples' lands, if we work together, we can make sure that legislation is meeting the needs of first nations, Métis and Inuit children, youth and families.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut blows me away every day in this place.

She mentioned the SCC ruling on Bill C-92. In terms of self-determination, there are concerns I have had lately about child welfare matters impacting our kids. At committee, I pushed an amendment forward to an adoptive care bill, an EI bill, to include kinship and customary care to ensure that the bill was consistent with Bill C-15, meaning that all future legislation has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Winnipeg North member said the other day that they are in the process of trying to throw out those amendments, which, once again, with the SCC ruling, affirm the need for amendments to the current EI bill.

I was wondering what my colleague's thoughts were about the government's continual fight to not allow us to bring our kids home.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, before I begin, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his apology; I accept it, as he is correct that I abstained. Just to clarify, I abstained, along with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, with the full support of the whole NDP caucus, because we felt quite strongly that the Liberal government had been failing on indigenous peoples' issues and that we need to keep fighting hard for indigenous peoples.

Representing Nunavut in the House has been a huge honour. I have learned so much more about first nations and Métis in Canada.

I acknowledge that we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory, and I thank my NDP colleague, the member for Edmonton Griesbach, for doing more land acknowledgements, because what they mean are that, before Ottawa, first nations thrived on these lands for thousands of years before these Parliament buildings were ever built. Acknowledging that we are on unceded territories also means that first nations still exist, despite government and religious efforts to erase them. I am thankful for the strength of first nations that continue to host and welcome us.

I thank the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations, who is now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, for tabling Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of the national council for reconciliation, in June 2022. The introduction of the bill had been anticipated by indigenous peoples for years.

Before speaking to the bill, I am compelled to retell some of the experiences of indigenous peoples, in order to form the context of what would become the national council for reconciliation. Once I complete some of the context, I will speak to Bill C-29 and the amendments from the other place and conclude with remarks about the greater sense of hope I have for Inuit, first nations and Métis.

I recognize the strength and courage of first nations, Métis and Inuit, who have been waiting far too long for the bill's passage. I am guided by indigenous voices in my support for Bill C-29. I honour the survivors of residential schools. I honour their parents, who were robbed of raising their children. I honour the students who died in residential schools.

First nations, Métis and Inuit children who suffered from genocidal policies continue to ensure that Canada reconciles with indigenous peoples. Canada must do its part. Inuit, first nations and Métis experienced child sexual abuse and physical, emotional and spiritual abuses. These traumas continue to show in the form of intergenerational traumas suffered by children and youth today.

Just last week, I had conversations regarding education. Despite having explained what education was used for, genocide, I was expected to be okay with how it was described. I repeat: Western education was used as a genocidal tool against indigenous peoples. It is still used to keep indigenous peoples at the fringes of Canadian society. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls gathered important evidence. I implore all Canadians to read these reports, to incorporate them into school curricula and to ensure that all work in all of Canada is trauma-informed. These are important ways that Canadians can reconcile with indigenous peoples.

The national council for reconciliation was part of the 94 calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 53, 54 and 55, specifically, call on the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with aboriginal peoples, to establish the national council for reconciliation.

The Liberal government not only took seven years to table the legislation but also failed to collaborate with indigenous peoples. I recall specifically the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami dropped support for Bill C-29 based on the concerns not addressed by Parliament.

Call to action 53 will have been implemented when there is monitoring, evaluating and reporting on Parliament's responses. Call to action 54 will have been implemented when multi-year funding is sustained for the national council for reconciliation so it has the financial, human and technical resources to function appropriately, and when an endowment of a national reconciliation trust is created. Call to action 55 will have been implemented when progress on closing the gaps in indigenous peoples' health indicators, on eliminating overrepresentation in the justice system, and on other areas is reported.

The important work of the national council for reconciliation would ensure a non-partisan approach to hearing what the issues are and the changes that need to be made. It would fulfill an important role in monitoring government programs and policies. I think all members of the House can agree on the merits of this work and the pressing need for the establishment of the national council.

Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people continue to go missing. Families on and off reserve live in overcrowded, mouldy homes that make us sick. Communities lack access to fresh water and affordable, healthy food. Suicide rates, especially among youth in Nunavut, remain among the highest in the world. The scars of residential schools and other sinister tools of assimilation persist through intergenerational trauma. Too often the government stands by. I have hope that the national council would help pressure the government to end these injustices and many others.

Reconciliation is an important process that demands the highest standards of implementation. When the Liberals tabled the original Bill C-29, it required some work. This is evidenced by the many amendments that were passed at committee stage and now by the Senate.

I am proud of the NPD's amendments that were passed at committee. We ensured the inclusion of important advice to be drawn from survivors, elders and indigenous legal professionals. We fought for language that would ensure that the national council would use a rights-based approach to its work on advancing reconciliation. These amendments would make the national council stronger.

I thank the committee in the other place, which took great care in its deliberations on Bill C-29, some of which I will outline. The inclusion of the word “post-contact” in the preamble differentiates Métis from first nations and Inuit. This acknowledges the fact that first nations and Inuit existed before the arrival of settlers. It is an important and welcome change. Next, adding a definition for “indigenous governing body” keeps Bill C-29 more consistent with other legislation. It is more accurate language than the previous use of “government”, as not all indigenous groups are considered governments.

Senate amendment 3 expands on whom reconciliation may be with. It would not be just between government and indigenous peoples but would also be expanded to between indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples. Senate amendment 4 provides greater clarity on what the national council for reconciliation would monitor and report, including education.

Amendment 5 clarifies the importance of the federal government's obligations with respect to the duty to consult. It clearly outlines that the duty to consult, which is owed to first nations, Inuit and Métis, would remain, and that consulting with the national council for reconciliation would not mean that indigenous peoples were consulted. This is an important distinction that would ensure that the national council for reconciliation would remain arm's-length and non-partisan. It reaffirms the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples. New Democrats agree, looking to amplifying the rights of indigenous peoples at every possible opportunity.

Amendment 6 is particularly important as it would enable the national council for reconciliation to seek clarification if the minister fails to comply with obligations set out in the act. Senate amendment 7 changes what the minister would be required to do, from a one-time activity six months after the national council is established to annually. This would be important for keeping the minister accountable always. One of the main flaws of the original bill was that it was overly vague. I am glad that the other place agreed and has added more prescriptive language around the national action plan that helps clarify the national council's research scope and follow-up actions. I am hopeful this would ensure more robust work and reporting.

Senate amendment 8 makes a small but meaningful change. The government's progress towards reconciliation would be reported, and progress by all levels of government and society would be reported separately. This would give the national council more flexibility in its reporting by not lumping the two together.

Overall, as I said, the amendments are welcome additions that would help strengthen Bill C-29. I remind parliamentarians that much work is still required in order for indigenous peoples to acknowledge government efforts in reconciliation. Reconciliation must remain at the core of our work. The passage of Bill C-29 would be another step. So long as indigenous peoples are deprived of their right to self-determination, their right to housing and so much more, reconciliation must continue. I am encouraged by the amendments that were made by the other place and I am encouraged to see the strength they would add to the national council for reconciliation.

To the future board members of the national council for reconciliation, expectations will be high. Inuit, first nations and Métis all across Canada will look to them to keep the governments accountable. It is not easy to challenge the established colonial structures and to hold the government to account on injustices. If anyone will be able to do it, it can be the national council for reconciliation. I urge all parties to support the Senate amendments so the national council for reconciliation can be established.

Finally, as I said in the beginning, I will conclude by sharing the hope I have for the future. I express my gratitude to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has upheld indigenous peoples' right to self-govern over children, youth and families. Indeed, prior to the damages caused by Canada's genocidal policies, Inuit and first nations, and later the Métis, exercised their own laws in areas that include well-being for children, youth and families.

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Bill C-92 is an important milestone in Canada. It has acknowledged that indigenous peoples can make our own laws. It has affirmed the importance of implementing UNDRIP. I thank the 42nd Parliament for having tabled Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I shared the frustration that the pace of reconciliation is probably not where we want it to be. We want to advance things in a very expedient and fast way.

If we look at, for example, Bill C-92, which was a piece of legislation we brought forward, it was passed in 2021, was challenged, and today we have a resolution on it from the Supreme Court. Therefore, some of these issues take a bit of time.

I appreciate the question and look forward to working with the member opposite.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

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

I would. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying previously, in the discussions today, one of the concerns we were trying to address with the amendment we proposed yesterday was this idea of how to address the term “Indigenous governing body” and the terms “collectivities” or “collectivity”, which appear in the bill nine times. How do we define that? How do we understand who that is? There was some concern, combined with some confusion and some lack of ability to explain and define what that term actually means.

In the context of the conversations today, this amendment is actually a relatively simple amendment to the original clause 8. Line 16 on page 4 becomes.... It was funny. Yesterday people asked what I meant by “-half of the Métis collectivity”. You have to read in the context of how it flows within the actual clause.

It would read, “on behalf of the Métis collectivity, including its citizens, set out in column 2 opposite”, and it would go on from there.

As we had it yesterday, we also include a definition of “Indigenous governing body” because that was a fairly important element for the Métis nations in the context of how it applies to Bill C-92 and their ability to provide the services under Bill C-92 for the kids in their jurisdictions. As well, on the end of that definition, relative to the one that started this whole conversation way back, I believe, on Monday morning, it adds “and, for greater certainty, includes a Métis government”, so there is an absolute assurance that an indigenous governing body includes a Métis government.

The point I would like to make in the context of the amendment to clause 8 on line 4—I guess it would probably roll over to line 5—is that the collectivity, including its citizens.... The thing that's really important to recognize—and this was something that was very important to the Métis nations—was this idea that a collectivity can be greater than just the sum of its citizens. There is an ability to recognize that and—I hope I'm not going to use the wrong word here—that they are able to advocate for people who could be part of their collectivity but may not have chosen to be part of their citizenship when it comes to things like hunting rights and some of those kinds of things.

I think I am satisfied that this explanation is reasonable and I'm satisfied that this is a good compromise that I think everybody at the table can get behind.

It's been an interesting week of getting here.

I'll leave my comments there. I'd love to hear the comments of our colleagues. I'd love to hear the comments of the officials, to make sure that we haven't overlooked something in this latest iteration of the inclusion of the definitions. Before we rush in to vote, I'd really like to hear the opinion of the officials and colleagues at the table who have been here through this process to make sure that I'm not the only guy who thinks we got here.

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

I move amendment 12796449.

Is that adequate for technical purposes? Thank you. That saves me about five minutes of reading.

I would like to address some of the elements of this amendment, and there are a couple of other things that I would like to read into the record.

This amendment addresses many of the concerns that we've heard. It uses language from the three self-government agreements back in February 2023 for the three Métis nations.

I want to take a moment and read from the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan agreement, chapter 5, paragraphs 5.02(c), 5.02(d) and 5.02(e) on page 14. It's from the “Recognition” chapter, which is exactly the section of this piece of legislation that we're talking about—the section on recognition. I get that I'm picking out a piece. I can read the whole thing if somebody wants me to. It's talking about some of the definitions here:

(c) the Métis Government is the democratic representative government of the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan and has the responsibility for providing responsible and accountable self-government for its Citizens and Métis collectivity throughout Saskatchewan;

(d) the Métis Government is the Indigenous Governing Body of the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan;

(e) the Métis Government is exclusively mandated to represent the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan based on the authorizations it receives from its Citizens and the Métis collectivity throughout Saskatchewan comprised of those Citizens, in respect of collectively held Métis Rights, interests, and claims, and in particular to:

i. implement and exercise the Métis Nation within Saskatchewan's inherent rights to self-determination, including the right of self-government

There are a number of other subparagraphs to the paragraph, or however you would technically frame that.

My purpose in presenting this amendment in this manner is this.

I'm going to be really frank with you. Since Saturday afternoon, I've lived and breathed this, trying to find the balance. I did that with two people on my side and some work with Ms. Idlout's team. We don't have tons of people to do this work. We went back and forth with the legislative clerk, who was fabulous, quite frankly. I think this is the fifth amendment that she's put together for me as we've tried to work through this. This is the one that we chose to use. She has been fabulous in working with us and giving us advice. We said, “Here's what we're trying to accomplish”, and she was tremendous at providing us with the legal advice to put these words together. In all fairness, she's the one who came up with a bunch of the language in this. I want to give credit where credit is due.

I believe this amendment creates very clear, unambiguous language, and it leaves no doubt whatsoever as to who is included or not included in this legislation. We heard from so many people the concern about the clarity of who is and who isn't included in this whole relationship that we're creating with this very important legislation. We heard it over and over again.

My intent is to create clear, unambiguous language so that we're not dealing with this somewhere down the road in a way that's causing issues for anybody. I tried to make it a compromise. I tried to make it a fair balance of the concerns that we heard from so many sources.

The language in the amendment also goes on to define “citizens” in each of the three Métis nations, and those definitions are literally from each of the independent agreements of the Métis nations from February 2023. I think that some of them were from February 24, 2023, and some of them were from February 23, 2023. The language is coming right out of those agreements.

The last thing that I would like to add to the conversation is that, out of respect for the conversations I had yesterday with some of the stakeholders, I wanted to ensure that we actually left “Indigenous governing body” in here because it is important in the context of how that applies to Bill C-92. I didn't want to come to a place where I took that out.

Specifically, I was talking to some of the folks from the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. They assured me that they were talking to the people from the other provinces. I wanted to leave that in there out of respect, because this is what triggered some of the concerns in the first place. Out of respect for the fact that this is critical in the context of child and family services under Bill C-92 and ensuring they have a place there, I wanted to put it back in. As was explained to me, the assurance of putting it in there was to ensure they are included in that definition.

When you look at the end of the amendment, not only does it take the standard definition of “Indigenous governing body” that we talked about the other day in so many different places, but it adds and for greater certainty includes “a Métis government”. Nobody is left to doubt whether a Métis government is included in this definition of “Indigenous governing body”, especially as it would come back and refer to the approach on Bill C-92.

My intent, in fairness, was to find a balance, to find a compromise. My intent was to try to get it right. I look forward to the comments of the officials at the table, who would have some opinion on this, and to my colleagues' comments. Let's see where this goes. I'm happy to hear the comments of others.

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

I'm very familiar with Bill C-92. I was on this committee when that passed.

Are there other areas where “Indigenous governing body” is recognized by Canadian law that would suddenly be impacted by this?

I see now that that's what this is doing, and this would narrow it significantly. What would be the ramifications of that?

[Julia Redmond]

The clarification I would add here is that this doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on Bill C-92 as a piece of legislation. It also doesn't prevent any of the Métis governments addressed by this bill from meeting that test, that definition of “Indigenous governing body” for the purposes of that act. It's still possible that they would meet that test, but it would have to be shown.

One reading of what's in clause 8 is that this could still be shown from what is spelled out here. However, without that phrase in there, “for the purposes of this act”, it's not as automatic as it might be.

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

Yes. I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to beat something. Why couldn't the terminology just be that it's a Métis government that is authorized to act on behalf of a Métis collectivity? Why do we have to specifically add that terminology? Why are we not just taking that out? If there's no accepted definition, if there's no understanding of what that means, and it's only a definition that applies to Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, or even in the February agreements.... There's a definition in the agreements, and you're saying the only reason it needs to be defined there is that there are references to Bill C-92 in the agreements.

Why are we including this in clause 8? I don't think I've heard an answer to that question.

[Michael Schintz]

One of the points I want to touch on.... You referred to the 2023 agreements. If you were to do a word search in that agreement, you would note the only reference to an indigenous governing body is in the section dealing with Bill C-92. That's the singular reference.

In this instance, one of the challenges in the drafting is that there's an accepted definition of an indigenous governing body as our counsel has noted. That definition is somewhat broader, because it contemplates, for example, that there is an indigenous governing body that might represent a band. In this instance, we're not speaking about bands; we're speaking about these Métis governments. To include a definition, one of the challenges would be that there would be a reluctance to want to depart from the accepted definition found in Bill C-92.

What we're looking to suggest with clause 8 here is that these are indigenous governments. They've been authorized to represent rights holders, those who hold section 35 rights. Those are the two key components of the definition of an indigenous governing body as found in Bill C-92. I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Bill C-29 offhand.

I'm trying to answer your question, Mr. Vidal. I don't know if that does or doesn't. Please let me know.

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

I'm sorry. Why add the term, then? It already says “Métis government”. Why add the term? Why add the addition that it's an...?

My sense is that there's no definition in the bill, or there's nothing in the definitions section—I think that's in clause 2 of the bill, which has the definitions that we're going to talk about later—that defines “Indigenous governing body” differently from what I would accept.

In fact, the exact same definition that you talk about in Bill C-92 or Bill C-29, which is intended to have a broader purpose, is the same definition that is in the February 2023 agreements for both MNA and MN-S, although it's not in the agreement for MNO.

Why include the term in the first place?

Where I'm going with this is.... We've heard concerns from people from all three provinces—very much less so in Saskatchewan, I must admit—that they're being included in something without their choice. We talked about the definition of communities, peoples and collectivities. Further down that road, in the agreements, there are definitions of citizenship, for example. Maybe if we use citizenship as a definition in some of these things, we could alleviate some of....

My concern is that, with this broader definition, by adding the words “Indigenous governing body”, we're broadening the definition of Métis government to include groups of people who don't necessarily want to....

There was discussion with Mr. Viersen and some of the witnesses who were here about both the Métis communities and the locals within the provinces. They feel they're being included in this without their consent, knowledge or willingness. Is this why they're feeling that? Is it because of this broader definition?

I don't get how you can argue that it's a narrower definition here, when it's exactly the same term and there is no definition that differentiates that.

Does that make sense? Maybe somewhere along the way, we should add a definition that then clarifies that.

[Julia Redmond]

To clarify, Bill C-92 contemplates a broader set of possible indigenous governments than is covered in Bill C-53.

Bill C-53 concerns only Métis governments. We're talking about a particular category. It's a subset of indigenous governments. Because Bill C-92 is broader, the definition of “Indigenous governing body” makes sense in that it would capture a broader set of indigenous governments.

They're trying to do two different things.

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

You're saying that the definition in Bill C-92 has a different purpose from the one it has here. Is that what I caught?

Maybe I didn't quite...but that's what I heard.