Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're resuming the study of Bill C-53 with officials. I have you first up for five minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Is this for the officials?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I understood that I was second, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay; then we'll move it to Mr. Battiste.

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

Thank you.

Some of the concerns we've heard from the Métis in Alberta have to do with the Métis settlements out there.

I'm wondering whether you could comment about what we could do within this legislation to address the needs of the Métis settlements.

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

This legislation is about recognizing that the Métis collectivities in Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have the inherent right to self-government, and it's also about recognizing that the Métis governments mentioned are mandated to represent the section 35 rights of those collectives. This legislation is not suited to, at this point, discuss the rights of other bodies, so I think it would be difficult to include in this bill provisions that would address the situation of the Métis settlements in Alberta.

The department—my sector—has a discussion with the Metis settlements governing council, and I think this is the right venue to continue to have discussions with them to continue to pursue their view of self-determination and—

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

Thank you for that.

A lot of the discussion we've heard is about the safeguards on the first nations rights and first nations resources and lands. I think the minister was very clear that this treaty is not about or in contemplation of land or resources—that it's about what's described in the purpose—but there are no parts of the legislation that strictly say that.

I'm wondering if you think that putting in a non-derogation clause similar to what we've used in other legislation would to help to clarify this. Does it give the proper safeguards that we need to ensure that first nations rights are protected?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

The agreements as they stand include a non-derogation clause, and nothing in the agreements as they stand would impact the aboriginal rights of other indigenous groups. Similarly, the treaties will include a clause of that nature, and including a clause in the bill to the same effect would reinforce the message that nothing in the act affects the aboriginal rights of other groups, whether they are Métis or first nations or Inuit.

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

Just for greater certainty, do you think that the non-derogation clause provides those safeguards adequately so that first nations can be assured that this is not what's on the table currently?

[Martin Reiher]

What's on the table is legislation that provides a framework to bring into force treaties. The treaties that are contemplated are core governance treaties, which would deal with citizenship, as the minister described, leadership selection and internal governance, with no jurisdiction over lands. That's what's contemplated. Any treaty includes a non-derogation clause about the rights of other indigenous groups.

I believe that these are two separate questions. I think a non-derogation clause would certainly reassure first nations and other indigenous groups that whether future treaties are limited to core governance or include additional jurisdiction, there would be no impact on their aboriginal rights. To that extent, I suppose it might help.

Do you have anything to add, Michael?

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

Did you want to add anything to that?

[Michael Schintz, Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

No.

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

All right. I think I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're now going to Madame Gill for her two and a half minutes on this round.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reiher, I wish we could continue along the same lines a little. We've talked about consultations several times during the hearing of various witnesses. We're talking about amendments. The question of fairness also came up today.

I'd like to get your impression, since we can only talk about impressions at this point. Do you have the impression that certain amendments could promote acceptance of Bill C‑53 by all the witnesses we've heard from so far? Is this possible and, if so, what would these amendments be?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it's my place to present a position on this issue.

I think the minister has indicated that he is willing to hear about the amendments that will be proposed and that he will examine them carefully. Our role will then be to support him in this work.

At this time, our position, as public servants, is that the current version of Bill C‑53 achieves the objectives pursued. These objectives are essentially to recognize the inherent rights of certain communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and to recognize that the indigenous governments mentioned represent these communities in terms of the rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act,1982. The bill proposes a mechanism for approving future treaties.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Reiher.

I understand your situation and you certainly understand mine. I want to make sure that everyone is happy with Bill C‑53. That will be all for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're moving right along.

Now we'll go to Ms. Idlout for two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Thank you, Chairperson.

I wonder if you could very quickly explain the connection between the enabling legislation of Bill C-53 and the self-government agreements of the three provincial nations. How does that connection work?

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you for the question.

The connection between the legislation and the agreements is that on the basis of the current agreements, Canada and these organizations will negotiate treaties that will deal with the same elements of the agreements. The legislation provides a framework that will allow for the adoption of these treaties. That's a main component of the bill. That's the interplay.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Just as an example, 15.04—I don't know which agreement this is—with the MNO, says that:

If a court of competent jurisdiction finally determines that any Aboriginal People, other than the Métis Communities Represented by the MNO, have rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that are adversely affected by a provision of this Agreement: (a) the provision will operate and have effect to the extent it does not adversely affect those rights.

Can you describe that, please?

[Martin Reiher]

Yes, and I will invite others to provide additional details.

My understanding of that clause would be that it would provide for what we would call a reading down of the agreement to make sure that no rights are actually affected.

Is that clear enough?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm being told as well that one group of Métis, because of who they choose to have within their membership, might have their rights adversely affected because of, for example, the recognition of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

Have you anticipated what it might look like when the Métis Settlements in Alberta have existing governance, whereas the Métis Nation of Alberta would...? How would that relationship work so that Métis in Alberta do not become divided and so that they are indeed able to work together and still have respect for relationships with the federal government?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to jump in.

We are out of time. I'll allow a brief response, and then we'll move on. Ms. Idlout will have one more round of questions, so if she wants to come back to it, she can.

Could we have a brief response, please?