Bill C-53

Recognition of Certain Métis Governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan and Métis Self-Government Act

An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment provides for the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan and provides a framework for the implementation of treaties entered into by those Métis governments and the Government of Canada. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

When you're talking about core Métis governance in Alberta, and Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the Métis Nation of Alberta, setting aside that there are separate negotiations, do you think that...?

Also, this bill talks about UNDRIP and when the duty to consult would be triggered. Have you analyzed whether free, prior and informed consent has been triggered, considering that core governance in one territory would be impacted against another?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

That flows logically to my next question.

When you were talking about your partners in developing Bill C-53, was the Metis Settlements General Council considered a partner in this codevelopment process?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Uplaakut. Good morning.

I don't get to say “uplaakut” to this group very often. We normally meet in the afternoons.

I do appreciate the line of questioning from the Conservatives this morning.

Based on the responses from the table, from the witnesses, I do have some questions that I want to get clarification on. In Canada's history, with Canada's colonial history, what Canada did to get rid of not just our cultures, not just our languages but our governments is still felt today.

I think the fact that we have to use legislation to recognize their self-government is what's frustrating, and that's what we've heard from first nations and Métis throughout this study. The fact is that legislation recognizing an indigenous governing body is still a form of colonialism.

Having said that, I've always tried in this study to make sure that I'm founded in the fact that Métis do inherently have a right to self-government. Through this study, we've learned that there have been a lot of infringements and valid concerns about what this Liberal government has done to get Bill C-53 on the table. Because of that, we've heard that a lot of division has been created, not just between first nations and Métis, but Métis against Métis, which is the most disrespect that I've seen.

It's so unfortunate that we learned through this study that while MNA, the Métis Nation of Alberta, was doing great work to be recognized as a self-governing body, at the same time, the Metis Settlement General Council was being ignored and was not a part of these discussions. To see that division in Alberta between the Métis is a huge injustice, and that's what we're grappling with here today. That's what we, as parliamentarians, are trying to reconcile, because we should not be seen to be trying to diminish the good work of the MNA because of what it will cost to the Metis Settlement General Council.

We do need a lot of clarifications if we're going to support this bill because we do not want to.... I know I do not want to play a part in creating more division among indigenous peoples.

When you were responding to Mr. Vidal about indigenous governing bodies, one of the responses from you was that Bill C-53 was codeveloped with partners. Can you talk more about what that process was and why it is that your partners are so adamant that “Indigenous governing body” be included in clause 8?

That's my first question.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Let me go through my introductory comments.

We recognize that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

We're continuing to meet on clause-by-clause of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

We only have members online today. The members online know how this works. I'm not going to go through all of the interpretation and muting and things.

I'd like to welcome back our officials who are joining us on a lovely Monday morning. Thank you for being here.

For clause-by-clause, I think everybody knows how it goes now. With regard to the point that was raised last week, I'll make sure I give an opportunity for people to weigh in, if they want to weigh in on any given clause.

Where we left off was with debate on clause 8 and amendment CPC-3.2.

I'll ask, from the Conservatives, whether a member would like to move CPC-3.2.

Mr. Zimmer.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I'm going to provide a ruling from the chair. I'll ask for your indulgence as we go through this.

Clause 5 of Bill C-53 provides that treaties entered into by a Métis government and His Majesty in right of Canada may be brought into force on a date fixed by the Governor in Council, once the Governor in Council is satisfied that the conditions for the coming into force of a treaty by the Métis government and the Government of Canada have been met.

The amendment proposes that both Houses of Parliament must affirm, by resolution, that the requirements for the coming into force of a treaty have been met before the Governor in Council can fix the date on which a treaty can come into force and add the necessary information to the schedule.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, subjecting the coming into force of a treaty to the affirmation by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have explained it in what I just read. Briefly, it's beyond the scope of the bill passed at second reading. That's where we have exceeded the.... We're beyond it.

Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities. This amendment is contrary because it would not recognize any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that's represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule. That's where it exceeds.

With that, there's no debate allowed once we get into it. That's the explanation, so we'll call the required vote with our clerk leading that.

The question is whether to sustain the chair's ruling that NDP-2.1 is inadmissible.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 4)

This leads us to clause 4.

First up, we have CPC-1.4. Would the member like to move this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

On this one, there is a ruling I'd like to share with the committee.

Bill C-53 seeks to advance the recognition of the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, of certain Métis collectivities and the recognition of the authority of Métis governments to act on behalf of those collectivities.

The amendment seeks to clarify that “nothing in this Act is to be construed as recognizing any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that is represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

It is the opinion of the chair, since Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities, that the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

That's the ruling of the chair on NDP-2.1.

Mr. Viersen.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to provide a ruling from the chair, based on advice from our expert team here.

Bill C-53 provides a framework for the implementation of treaties between Canada and the Métis governments listed in the schedule. The amendment seeks to identify an element that cannot be contained in a future treaty. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Viersen.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues. Let's get started. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we're meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21 and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

We're going to get right into it. We had a start on Tuesday, so we're going to pick up right where we left off. We're on new clause 2.1, with MP Schmale's subamendment to CPC-1.1.

We are on the subamendment, and the floor is with Mr. Viersen.

[Julia Redmond]

The only thing I would add is that those agreements signed in February 2023 between Canada and the MNA, the MN-S and the MNO would remain in force regardless of whether Bill C-53 becomes law.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

To repeat my question—I don't think I was heard—if Mr. Viersen's recommendation is to allow the interpretation of Métis individuals asserting those types of things, what could be the potential legal impacts? When I look at Bill C-53, I see it as good protection against identity theft. We know there are a lot of “pretendians” out there.

Because of our status, our beneficiary list and the registries, we are able to confirm, through our collectives and through our governments, who indigenous peoples are. I wonder if opening that interpretation creates a loophole for those people who might not be indigenous to try to assert indigeneity. I wonder if that could be allowed to happen in this legislation.

I don't know if I am interpreting it correctly, but is it a possibility that this would happen?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

We're going to remain on this one and talk about “collectivities” and “peoples”, just to keep on tap what we're meaning, because it could have.... I don't know what kinds of impacts there will be if we're not consistent. I'm quite concerned about how that could create confusion, especially given that, for example, we were told by the Metis Settlements General Council about their concerns with the Métis Nation of Alberta and how this impact could mean that membership might change from the Métis settlements to the Métis Nation of Alberta because of this enabling legislation. I'm trying to think of the reality of what's going to happen to the Alberta Métis and what's going to happen with each of their memberships, based on what happens on Bill C-53.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm not asking about the courts. I'm asking about, for example, a Métis nation in Alberta that is not an authorized Métis nation according to Bill C-53, and they are saying their rights are being infringed. The reason that this clarity has been sought is that this concern is out there.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I need to understand this based on a future scenario, so I'm going to ask you to pretend that you're a lawyer in the future that has to interpret Bill C-53 as if we passed both of the NDP amendments. What would be the effect of the interpretation based on what those realities are and not based on what the intent of the past is?

Right now, I understand that intent is one thing, but we know that in law, intent doesn't always result in what the interpretation of it will be. I don't want to base our decisions today on what the intent is but on what the possible legal interpretation could result in at a later time.