Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21, 2023, and pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Our meeting is taking place in a hybrid format today. For those members who are online, you know the drill, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. For those in the room, now that we've started, no photos or screenshots are allowed.

I'd like to welcome back our officials. From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have Martin Reiher, senior assistant deputy minister, treaties and aboriginal government.

Welcome.

We have Michael Schintz, federal negotiations manager, negotiations—central, treaties and aboriginal government, and Blake McLaughlin, director general, negotiations—central, treaties and aboriginal government.

Finally, from the Department of Justice, we have Julia Redmond, legal counsel.

Welcome to our officials.

I'd also like to welcome Eric Melillo, and Jenica Atwin is here for the duration of this one. It's good to see you.

Colleagues, I'm going to go through a bit of a script here so that we know what we're up against.

To begin, I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-53.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. I have double clerks here today to help keep speaking order lists.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. That's an important consideration. We are allowed to take amendments from the floor, but they need to be in writing to the clerk.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

With that as the instructions for today, we're going to move right into the agenda.

I have a couple of comments here to give you before we get down to business.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and of the preamble are postponed.

(On clause 2)

I call clause 2. Now, since there are a couple of amendments to clause 2, the interpretation clause, I suggest that we postpone the study of clause 2 until the end. This will allow us to first consider and make a decision on amendments that could have an impact on the definitions.

As a reminder, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773 that:

The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.

Therefore, clause 2 will be considered after the schedule.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

If anybody has anything related to clause 2, hold that until we get near the very end. I have it in my notes and I will be bringing us back to that.

Is there agreement that we skip to new clause 2.1?

Go ahead, Arnold.

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

It's not so much on this. Just before we get into the clause-by-clause consideration, I was wondering if we could get some clarification around our supplements motion and the ministers appearing at the committee. Do we have any word that the minister is coming and do we have it scheduled?

I expected that before we got to this meeting, we'd be hearing something, but I didn't hear anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

The ministers—there were three in the motion—have been invited. We have not received a response at this point. They've indicated that they will try to send us their availability by tomorrow.

We were told that this week was out of the question, so we are aiming for either Tuesday or Thursday of next week. That's what we've given them and that's what I'm hoping to be able to announce as soon as we can confirm the three ministers.

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

Okay. Hopefully it's Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Now we're going to new clause 2.1 and CPC-1.1.

Does the member want to move the amendment?

I see Mr. Viersen.

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

You just said you're skipping clause 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're skipping clause 2 at this time, but we have new clause 2.1, which is amendment CPC-1.1.

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

Okay, but that's also part of clause....

It's a new clause.

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

I think maybe it's best if we deal with the other two before we get to that. Why don't we start with CPC-1.2?

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

We're dealing in the definitions here, are we not?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

This is Mr. Viersen's CPC-1.1.

Have you found it, Mr. Viersen?

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

I have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll ask if you want to move it, and if you do, I'll give you a brief opportunity to speak to it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to move this motion to add a new clause into the bill here.

This comes from a number of Métis folks who showed up at our committee and were concerned about their communities being represented by the national Métis association of Alberta and that their right to be represented by their own community may be reduced. They want to ensure they could pursue their self-government separately from from the Métis Nation of Alberta. They asked for this.

I wrote in to the drafters. I didn't necessarily expect it to be worded quite like this—an abrogation or derogation clause—but I know that Jaime mentioned this several times as well.

This would allow for folks like the Métis of Cadotte or the Métis of Fort McKay to pursue their own self-government agreements with the federal government in light of that. That's what this motion is hopefully doing.

I would maybe ask our officials if they have any opinions on whether this amendment would indeed achieve that.

Would this allow the Cadotte Métis or Fort McKay Métis to pursue self-government separate from the MNA?

[Julia Redmond, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I understand the CIRNA position to be effectively that they already have that option, regardless of whether this clause is in here, so this doesn't change the reality of the statute or the bill as it is already. They still have that option.

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

Would this allow for greater clarity for those folks who were concerned about that?

[Julia Redmond]

It doesn't change the reality of the bill, which is that this option is available to those other Métis groups, whether or not this amendment is included.

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

Okay, that's my amendment as moved. I hope to get support from other groups here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, on my speaking list I have Jaime first, and I'm looking to see if anybody else online or in person has their hand up.

Okay, Michael is second.

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

I think it's important that we do figure out how to ensure that the Métis settlements of Alberta and their concerns in this are properly reflected. There has been some discussion, and we feel that the better time to do that is in NDP-4.2, where they're talking about,

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the right to self-determination of Métis collectivities that are not represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule, including the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

We had some conversations with stakeholders as well as with the NDP, and we feel that this could be made clearer with a paragraph amendment: “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the right to self-determination of a Métis collectivity that has not authorized a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule to the act, on behalf of, including respecting the inherent right to self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act.”

That's a long way of saying that we would rather see that change in NDP-4.2, and that's why we will be voting against.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have Michael and then Jamie.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I thought we had a fairly good discussion on it with the Alberta Métis communities when they raised this issue. We also had it brought up when the minister appeared before us, and he was quite clear that this agreement, this treaty, would not be the sole agreement for that area, for Alberta. I believe our officials also clarified that, so I'm not sure why we need to go to this extent.

It's been clear all along that this agreement is not the sole agreement for any jurisdiction, and that includes Alberta. The door is still open for the Métis settlements to move forward. The arguments that they used were that their own agreements, their own claims, were not moving fast enough, and that's where we should maybe make some recommendations to support them in that fashion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Next I have Jamie and then Marilène.

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

I have a question, through you, to the departmental officials here.

One of the comments or concerns that we heard during testimony was specifically around land that some chiefs in northern Ontario thought could be challenged, either in court or through forced negotiations—their words, not mine.

Does this NDP motion, NDP-4.2, address some of those concerns that the chiefs brought forward in testimony?

[Julia Redmond]

The position is the same on both. It's essentially that neither changes the legal effect of the bill. Those rights are unaffected regardless of whether CPC-1.1 or NDP-4.2 are included.