Bill S-13

An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Interpretation Act to provide that Acts of Parliament and regulations are to be construed as upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , and not as abrogating or derogating from them. It also amends or repeals similar provisions in other Acts known as non-derogation clauses.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to pay tribute to someone, if I may.

It was with great sadness that we learned that a great advocate for the Métis and a strong advocate for first nations and Inuit indigenous rights, Jim Aldridge, has passed away. He was much more than a lawyer. He was a pillar for Métis and for all indigenous peoples. He was deeply committed to justice, upholding treaty rights and upholding the right to self-determination.

His contribution to indigenous rights, including in relation to modern treaties, will remain etched in our country's legal and social history. He understood that modern treaties are not only legal agreements but also essential tools to build nation-to-nation relationships and to recognize the rights and aspirations of indigenous communities. He has worked passionately to ensure that these treaties are upheld, not only in theory but also in concrete implementation, ensuring that indigenous peoples have the means to thrive within a framework that respects their culture and sovereignty.

During his lifetime, he worked for over 30 years as a lawyer. He argued and fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 2013 for major issues on indigenous rights. He witnessed just two weeks ago the signing of the only modern treaty with the Red River Métis. When Bill S‑13was passed, he saw a side of all of us that is not seen often enough. Unfortunately, he will not be able to give us his testimony on Bill C‑77, but I am convinced that his voice would have enriched our discussions and would have enabled us to better understand the issue.

I am deeply saddened by his absence, as he carried with him wisdom, expertise and humanity that will never be replaced. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Guylaine, his children and all those who considered him to be one of their own, a friend, and who had full confidence in him. May our work honour his memory and his commitment to the recognition and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Meegwetch.

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

Thank you.

Look, Bill C-77 is a bill that was co-developed by modern treaty nations. It's something they've been asking for for over 20 years. This was truly co-developed with the full involvement of all existing modern treaty nations. It is something they have been asking for from the government for the last number of months as we finalized it. We tabled the legislation earlier in the fall.

I appreciate that notwithstanding the deadlock, it seems, in Parliament, the people at this table were able to work across partisan lines. We were able to pass Bill S-16 and Bill S-13. I want to acknowledge and thank the members for that. I think these are critical pieces of legislation, and so are Bill C-77, Bill C-61 and a range of others. We need to unlock Parliament to debate them and have constructive work done. That's why we were all elected to be here. It is transformative work. In fact, one of the challenges we have with some of the historical and numbered treaties is that there is no mechanism of the kind we could have through Bill C-77, so I implore colleagues around the table to work in collaboration. One thing I always pride myself on is being able to reach across the aisle to work with all of you here.

This is not about partisanship. Reconciliation, I've often said, is an intergenerational journey that involves all of us. No one party or government has exclusivity over it. I believe we've done a significant amount of work in that regard. Ultimately, anyone who cares about where this country is going on reconciliation needs to work with us on this.

Interpretation Act

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 19, Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, is deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in without amendment at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-13. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 25, 2024—The Minister of Justice—Consideration at report stage of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as deemed reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, similar to Mr. Bittle, I also want to touch on the subject of indigenous languages.

In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, on the east coast of Vancouver Island it's largely Coast Salish. The dominant language is Hul'q'umi'num. There are certainly variations of that. Then, on the west coast, I have a tiny bit of Nuu-chah-nulth territory.

I know that a lot of the rights related to indigenous languages and their protection and revitalization are confirmed by federal statute, and I know that we have the Official Languages Act. I'm just wondering, first of all, if there was anything you wanted to add to your previous answer to Mr. Bittle.

Also, just on Bill S-13's broad scope, do you have any thoughts on how it's going to specifically interact with some of the provisions in the Official Languages Act? I know that in my communities the preservation of Hul'q'umi'num is very near and dear, and we have only a handful of truly fluent speakers. There are some very serious efforts being made to share that language with the younger generation. We are having success, but there is going to be some assistance required in order to keep this language alive and well for future generations.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Sargent.

Mr. Minister, are there other references, such as established authors of scholarly articles on indigenous issues, who might have said that section 35 isn't enough and that legislation such as Bill S‑13 should be passed?

[Laurie Sargent]

Thank you for your question.

I refer you to the reference to the Quebec Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It wasn't a question of whether to adopt a provision such as the one proposed in Bill S‑13, but rather the importance of having an interpretive provision in the federal legislation. I just want to clarify that it stressed the importance that, as the minister explained, we must be careful to interpret the act in question in a way that is consistent with section 35.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Has any other appellate court ever indicated that a provision such as the one proposed in Bill S‑13 should be adopted?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, with all due respect, I must admit that you didn't convince me earlier. I'm obviously convinced of the importance of respecting the rights and treaties already signed and in force. It's essential that we continue to respect those treaties and indigenous rights. However, I still believe that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, already provides for that.

You referred me to a British Columbia court ruling, but I believe it's a trial court. Has the Supreme Court ever addressed this issue? Has it already indicated that legislation such as Bill S‑13 should be passed?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Bill S-13 empowers and ensures that aboriginal rights, as safeguarded under the Constitution and as safeguarded under treaties, are given priority and not derogated from or not diminished. It complements some of the work we've done in other respects. I'll take some ownership of this, because I worked on the Indigenous Languages Act when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage in our first Parliament, the 42nd Parliament.

I think in each of these instances, what you're seeing is that rights affirmations, emboldening people, passing legislation and coupling it with resources to embolden people to protect and preserve their culture and their language only bode well for that kind of cultural protection in terms of having this kind of non-derogation clause.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Does Bill S-13 affect indigenous language rights?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Why are bills like Bill S-13 and Bill C-61 important for nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships with indigenous peoples?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the consultations that you had, I understand that there was a very clear majority of stakeholders who were happy with the direction that this bill took.

Could you provide this committee with a little more detail on the nature of the minority views? Were they over the language selection in this amending bill, Bill S-13, or were they a bit broader? I'd like to be informed on the nature of those minority views.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The answer to that is that I do, absolutely.

What I've heard from indigenous rights holders is that they are very willing to embark upon that kind of consultative exercise. At this point, Bill S-13, as it's currently stipulated and articulated, is what we achieved consensus on, and that's what we're moving forward with.

Going forward, looking at whether further amendments may be necessary to the Interpretation Act to reconcile it with UNDRIP would make a lot of sense. I think that is work that we should actively pursue.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The UNDRIP Act that we did pass does call to make sure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. If we're trying to look for a way of making sure that Canada's laws are consistent with the declaration, I think a starting point would actually be through the Interpretation Act.

Now, I can appreciate that maybe it's a little bit too late to put that in the current version of Bill S-13, but do you see a possibility in the future of using the Interpretation Act to make sure that Canada's federal laws are consistent with the declaration, as is called for in the act?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Minister, welcome to the committee, and thank you for being here to discuss Bill S-13.

A large part of my riding's population is indigenous. In fact, two out of three names in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are anglicized names of first nations. Any time I'm here as a member of Parliament discussing anything to do with indigenous rights, it's not merely a national issue for me; it's also very local. I have a lot of constituents who are very interested any time we're discussing this, either in the House of Commons or at committee.

You and I have both been here since 2015. In the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, we passed Bill C-15, which is the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. As you know, my province of B.C. has similar legislation as well.

The Province of British Columbia, however, also has an Interpretation Act. Its Interpretation Act makes specific reference to its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We don't see that in the current federal version of the Interpretation Act, nor do we see an amendment being made in Bill S-13.

The Senate report on this bill did make reference to the fact that this could be a pathway in the future. If you read Bill C-15, which is now part of the statutes of Canada, section 5 does state that “The Government of Canada must...take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.”

I can appreciate what this bill does. It, of course, has our support. I think it's an important bit of federal housecleaning to make sure that we have consistency.

Perhaps I could ask you this, Minister. Why not follow the example of the Province of British Columbia? Why not have, in our federal Interpretation Act, maybe through Bill S-13 or through another measure in the future, a specific reference to that very important federal UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You say that this had not been the case until now, but section 35 exists. I suspect it was passed from the very beginning, in 1867. This section has been around for a long time, but I don't know the exact date. Therefore, I'm not sure I fully understand the usefulness of Bill S‑13. Quite frankly, it seems to me that the protection afforded by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is more important.

That being said, there are other elements that raise certain questions. If I understood you correctly, you said that this will help strengthen relations with indigenous communities and advance reconciliation. I'd like you to tell me about that before my time is up. How will Bill S‑13 advance reconciliation with indigenous communities? Is there a demand for that? Did any of the representatives of the indigenous communities tell you that section 35 of the Constitution wasn't enough? Were they unanimous in that regard?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Welcome to our committee.

I read Bill S‑13. If I were to summarize it in a few sentences, I'd say that its purpose is to ensure that existing laws respect the indigenous rights and treaties that are included, recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. How will Bill S‑13 affect what is already in section 35 of the Constitution?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

First of all, with respect to my first response to Mr. Brock, I'd like to say that I take the demonstration of anti-Semitism in Montreal very seriously. I've spoken in the House and I'll say it again today: What we saw in Montreal is absolutely unacceptable.

With respect to your question, I would point out that, over the past 40 years, one law at a time, we had to find a compromise regarding the language used to show that we weren't going to derogate from the indigenous rights protected by the Canadian Constitution. What changes with Bill S‑13 is that we are proposing an amendment to the Interpretation Act that will have a broader application and affect any bill and any statute adopted by the federal government.

That will help us in terms of the effectiveness and consistency of the language we use, because we have observed an inconsistency in that regard over the past 40 years. The language used in a bill 15 years ago is not the same as the language used, for example, 15 months ago.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Thank you for giving us this hour.

I'm going to ask questions about Bill S‑13.

Why was the non-derogation clause previously used on an ad hoc basis?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

We support Bill S-13.

A few weeks ago, on November 11, during a bail compliance check, Toronto police officers found themselves—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I think the time was given to Mr. Brock to bring it back to Bill S-13. He has not done that, and now he has moved to another question unrelated to the topic. I know indigenous rights are very important to him, and he should move back to that topic.

Mr. Brock was insistent last week that Liberals stick to the topic. I'm curious why Conservatives don't hold themselves to the same standard.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Brock was outraged last week when we were here. He filibustered for an hour when there was a suggestion that we may ask questions of Mr. Viersen unrelated to the topic at hand.

This is unrelated to Bill S-13—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to be back here at the justice committee to speak about Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

Bill S-13 is a long time coming, colleagues. Indigenous peoples have been the driving force behind this bill for decades. I want to acknowledge that, in the room behind me, we have members of ITK. They were some of the principal movers of the bill, among others. I want to acknowledge their hard work, advocacy and dedication in advancing this important legislation. I also want to thank all members of the House for putting aside the gridlock to allow this important piece of legislation to pass.

Many first nations, Inuit and Métis have long called for a section 35-related non-derogation clause to be added to the federal Interpretation Act. This clause would be standardized and signify the importance of upholding “aboriginal and treaty rights” in Canadian law, as affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It would apply to all federal laws.

As part of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan, released on June 21, 2023, indigenous peoples have determined that the proposed adoption of a non-derogation clause is an ongoing priority.

Passage of this bill would mark the successful implementation of some of the measures outlined in the Action Plan's chapter entitled “Shared Priorities”. Consultations were held with several indigenous partners. They worked with us to move this bill forward. Indigenous peoples and organizations that represent them participated in more than 70 meetings and filed more than 45 submissions on the non-derogation clause legislative initiative.

I'm extremely grateful to all those who shared their perspectives and technical expertise.

This brings us now to the substance of this bill. Bill S-13's purpose is to add a section 35-related non-derogation clause to the federal Interpretation Act and to repeal most currently existing section 35-related non-derogation clauses found in other statutes. In this context, a non-derogation clause is a clause that states laws should be interpreted to uphold, and not diminish, the aboriginal and treaty rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 35 rights are of fundamental importance to indigenous peoples. These rights are constitutionally protected from infringement by government action, including through legislation, unless infringement is justifiable in accordance with the rigorous test set out by the Supreme Court in Sparrow.

At its core, section 35 serves to recognize indigenous peoples’ pre-existing rights and systems of governance, as well as to recognize the rights from treaties that have been concluded between Canada and indigenous peoples over past centuries. A section 35-related non-derogation clause aims to affirm and uphold this constitutional protection, highlighting the importance of applying federal legislation in a way that avoids infringing on these rights.

Bill S‑13 would ensure that all federal statutes are interpreted in a manner consistent with section 35 of the Constitution. It would therefore no longer be necessary, in the future, to add a non-derogation clause to each federal act. As such, Bill S‑13 would also remove the onus on indigenous peoples to advocate for a non-derogation clause to be added to each new bill that they believe could infringe on section 35 rights.

The rights of indigenous peoples should be respected by default. It shouldn't be necessary to repeat this in every act, regulation and order in council. The bill makes that possible. It also contributes to the government's reconciliation efforts with indigenous peoples. In addition, the bill promotes the consistency of federal legislation with respect to non-derogation clauses. Over the past 40 years, an ad hoc approach, combined with the changing legal landscape and legislative drafting practices, has led to non-derogation provisions that differ from one another.

Currently, there are several federal statutes that contain non-derogation clauses, with inconsistent wording. In order to ensure the clarity and consistency of laws, this bill proposes that almost all non-derogation clauses in existing laws would be repealed. The only exceptions would be a small number of laws where indigenous peoples who are directly impacted by specific legislation have indicated that it is important to retain the non-derogation clause in question.

I would underscore that the bill also builds on the important work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, culminating in its 2007 report entitled “Taking Section 35 Rights Seriously: Non-derogation Clauses relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights”. Many indigenous leaders and experts participated in the Senate committee hearings leading to the 2007 report. Indigenous peoples continued to advocate for a non-derogation clause after the release of the Senate report back in 2007.

In response to this ongoing advocacy and leadership, my department launched the consultation and co-operation process that led to the bill that is before all of you today. This started with preliminary conversations with key indigenous partners who had been involved with the Senate report. Then, in December 2020, letters were sent to nearly 60 indigenous rights holders and representative organizations, inviting them to meet with Justice officials or to provide written submissions, which occurred over the following year.

From December 2021 to May 2023, a significantly expanded group of indigenous partners had the opportunity to provide feedback on the initiative. This new consultation and collaboration process took place in two additional phases. The first began in December 2021, when the previous Minister of Justice announced an expanded consultation and collaboration process, consistent with the requirements of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Starting in February 2022, additional meetings were held with indigenous partners and several provided written responses to explore options for amending the Interpretation Act to include a non-derogation clause.

From March 1, 2023, to April 14 of the same year, the final phase of the consultation and co-operation process involved posting a draft legislative proposal on the Justice Canada website. This method enabled indigenous partners to review and comment on the draft legislative proposal. The draft legislative proposal was used to inform the language of Bill S-13, which remained identical.

Throughout the process, indigenous partners were broadly supportive of the non-derogation clause amendment, although there were differing views regarding the specific wording of the clause. Some preferred the expression “indigenous peoples”, while others preferred the expression “aboriginal and treaty rights” as it more closely reflects section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The proposed language in this bill uses both of these expressions to reflect a compromise between the language options.

The fate of the non-derogation clauses found in existing laws was also the subject of sustained discussions with indigenous partners. Many indigenous partners argued that non-derogation provisions should remain in laws that directly impact indigenous peoples, if that is the wish of the affected peoples.

The amendments proposed in the bill reflect what we heard from indigenous peoples during the consultation and collaboration process. Those exchanges enriched and clarified the wording of the non-derogation clause.

The bill and the process that brought us here are other examples of what can be accomplished when we work together. The bill marks an important step in respecting the rights of Canada's indigenous peoples.

As a federal government, we are very proud to be able to move forward with Bill S-13 as a further demonstration of our commitment to reconciliation and the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

As parliamentarians, I think we can all be proud of the work we're doing together to ensure that all federal laws are interpreted in a way that upholds section 35 of the Constitution. This initiative will contribute to promoting, protecting and affirming indigenous rights at the federal level and bring greater coherence and consistency to the interpretation of all federal laws.

At the same time, I would emphasize that it is indigenous peoples who laid the foundation for this bill by maintaining their resolve to see this initiative come to fruition. In that way, Bill S-13 demonstrates the important lessons of working in partnership and collaboration with first nations, Inuit and Métis in order to build stronger nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the meeting.

It's meeting number 123 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on November 19, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

I have a few housekeeping rules. I remind members and witnesses to wait until they're recognized before they speak. All questions and responses are to go through the chair.

I want to welcome the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Arif Virani.

With him is Laurie Sargent, assistant deputy minister, indigenous rights and relations portfolio.

[Rebecca Blake]

Maybe I can assist from a policy perspective. Clause 43 would only impact the existing 3(1). It wouldn't impact any other clauses that would be added.

Should the committee decide to go forward with that historic opportunity, that would be different from the existing 3(1), and there would be no impacts if Bill S-13 did pass.

[Douglas Fairbairn]

Clause 43 is the coordinating amendment that refers to Bill S-13, which would be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, and that would essentially bring a new non-derogation clause that would apply to all federal statutes. That would replace the existing non-derogation clause in clause 3 of this bill if the Interpretation Act amendment were to pass.

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

I don't know if this is the right time, Mr. Chair, but since we are studying amendment G‑1 and its components, I would like to come back to clause 43, the coordinating amendment. The clause relates to Bill S‑13.

Will clause 3 of the bill be repealed in its entirety? Would the committee not want to keep it, given that we want to give the bill a more historic, established scope?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

If Bill S-13 passes....

The purpose of clause 3 is to outline that there are rights to be upheld because of the Constitution. The two amendments that we've suggested are adding—what's the word? I can't think of it in Inuktitut or English.

The difference between PV-1 and G-1.... When I suggested my own amendment that's very similar, it was because the Blackfoot Confederacy also wanted this clause for them to understand that, if Bill S-13 passes, the removal of clause 3 does not impact their right to water.

The purpose of recognizing that right—whether it's a great, wonderful thing or not, or whether we've made an attempt to enshrine international law into this bill—won't matter anyway if Bill S-13 passes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm referring to clause 43 at the end of the bill. It mentions that if Bill S-13 receives royal assent, clause 3 of this bill would no longer be in force, if I read it correctly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious from that standpoint.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the discussion that we've had so far. I don't want to look too far ahead, but I did look too far ahead, to the ending of the bill. I'm thinking of clause 43.

If Bill S-13 receives royal assent, it is my understanding that this clause we were discussing amendments to would be removed completely. Did I read that correctly?

Obviously, we're looking to include this human right in clause 3, but if Bill S-13 receives royal assent, what impact would that have on the human right in Canada?

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

Thank you, Chair.

My question revolves around Bill S-13. I believe that piece of legislation is nearing potential completion in the House, whenever the House leaders do it. It's my understanding this gets repealed if Bill S-13 passes. Is that the non-derogation clause?

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this, because I do not think we have talked enough about indigenous reconciliation in the context of this evening's interventions.

What Bill S-13 would do is simply and surgically amend the Interpretation Act, such that all federal legislation would be interpreted so as not to derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights that are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution.

Right now, we have a checkerboard, where every individual piece of legislation has to insert this interpretive provision. If we simply amend the Interpretation Act, it would oversee the interpretation of all federal legislation and obviate the need for doing so.

We have consulted on this. We have worked with indigenous leadership on this. We have a bill that has worked its way through the Senate. That bill is something that actually should command unanimous consent in this chamber. I hope we can expeditiously pass it to do right by aboriginal and treaty rights that are constitutionally protected and need to be interpreted in that manner.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his leadership and his engagement on this critically important file, as well as working alongside other levels of government, collaborating with all who share the same concern to combat it. The minister is doing a fine job.

I also want to ask about the indigenous community and the issue of reconciliation, specifically around Bill S-13. Could the minister update us on that issue, in terms of how we are advancing the issue to support the first nations people?

Interpretation Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts be now read the first time and printed.

(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the amendment. I think this is more housekeeping than anything.

We're asking that Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 10 the following new clause:

26 If Bill S-13, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 1 of that Act and section 3.1 of this Act are in force, that section 3.1 is repealed.

This is something I believe we all agreed on. It's more of a housekeeping issue than anything.

[Julia Redmond]

I am saying that given ongoing work on another legislative initiative with S-13—

[Julia Redmond]

Yes, you understood my point correctly.

There are, among the amendments before the committee, certain ones that concern a more universal non-derogation clause and others that appear to be more specific. As I'm sure you're already aware, there is a legislative initiative dealing with a universal non-derogation clause—that's Bill S-13—that would apply to all federal statutes. This would be included within that, of course. Including a non-derogation clause in this bill is not strictly necessary, assuming Bill S-13 becomes law, because it would already be covered by that.

A broader non-derogation clause would cover everything that CPC-1.1 and NDP-4.2 are trying to cover. Those are a narrower statement of the same idea, which is not to abrogate or derogate from the rights of other indigenous peoples.

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

I have only five minutes to ask questions.

Would the legal counsel be comfortable...? We have legislation that's currently going through, Bill S-13, which reads:

Every enactment is to be construed as upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.

Would AFN be more comfortable if we inserted that exact language within this legislation to ensure that nothing in this act could abrogate or derogate from first nations' recognized rights?