Evidence of meeting #87 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I am saying that given ongoing work on another legislative initiative with S-13—
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I understand. The intention there is that the Interpretation Act will be amended to include a non-derogation clause that will apply to all federal statutes. The goal of that is to harmonize those non-derogation clauses to ensure that there's consistency and that they're interpreted in a predictable way.
I appreciate that there's a difference in the interim until that bill becomes law.
NDP
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.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
If I understand correctly, you're asking about the difference between the two non-derogation clauses and whether they affect the interpretation. While it's not for me to provide legal advice to the committee, I can say that I know that NDP 4.2 is more specific to Métis collectivities. It is possible that it could impact interpretation, but again, it's not for me to advise on how a court would necessarily determine how those non-derogation clauses would be different.
NDP
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.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I think it's been the position of the department that this bill, without added non-derogation provisions, would not impact the ability of other Métis governments to pursue their own path to self-determination, which we have said. I think it is also our position—and I think this goes to your question—that the addition of one or both non-derogation provisions would be a means of adding further clarity. It is our intention that this bill not have any adverse impact on any other government or, more appropriately, that it not derogate from the rights of another Métis collectivity.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Or first nations in Ontario—that's correct.
Is that fair to say, Julia? I see it is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
On my speaking list I have Mr. Carr, Mr. Vidal and Mr. Viersen.
It's over to you, Mr. Carr.
December 5th, 2023 / 4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
At this point, we've heard department officials reiterate a few times the legitimate points raised by my colleagues across the way. As Mr. Battiste mentioned, I think most are willing to support a version of this.
Ms. Idlout has put forward a version of this amendment, NDP-4.2, for which I think we will find widespread support when we get to that part of the process. I would like to encourage us to move forward now, as we have a variety of different amendments to discuss. We have heard the points raised. They are legitimate.
There seems to be consensus or support, by and large, that further clarity may help to alleviate some feelings and concerns that folks have vis-à-vis other Métis groups not represented by those listed in the schedule. We're there at that point. I'm not sure if it's even necessary, based on what the officials have said, but we agree that despite the fact it's not necessary, it has an added layer of protection. We're comfortable moving forward with that.
I would just like to encourage us to move forward to whatever amendment is up next. Thanks.
Liberal
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I want to get some clarity on a technical area.
Ms. Redmond, you were comparing CPC-1.1, NDP-4.2, and then I believe it was NDP-2, which is the same as CPC-2.1, I think.
Just a minute; I had them all in front of me, and now I shuffled.... Did I get the right numbers there? They're the same. Is that right? I just want some clarity.
In your comments you talked about CPC-1.1, which refers to “Métis people”, and compared it to NDP-4.2, which talks about “Métis collectivities”. Then you talked about the other two being broader, which would basically encompass the first two. I'm sorry. I don't think I'm being very clear, but I'm trying.
I think it was Mr. Carr who said that what we're looking for is some assurance, even though you indicate that maybe it's not necessary, for the people who have expressed their concerns. In your opinion, just for my sake, with regard to the difference between the clause that talks about about Métis collectivities, the one that talks about Métis people and the one that you referred to as the broader one, can you just clarify that for me one more time? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I'm all the way down this road.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
It will be easiest if I start with.... NDP-2 and CPC-1.3, as you've noted, are identical. The phrasing there refers to the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada. That is obviously a broad category that covers first nations, Métis and Inuit.
Métis collectivity—
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I'm sorry, but can I just...? That's why we have the clause that follows and actually defines “Indigenous Peoples of Canada”, while we don't have it in the other two. Is that correct?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Yes. My understanding of the intention here is that the phrasing is meant to capture all indigenous peoples of Canada. That's my understanding of what's being proposed.
On my reading of the other suggestions, they're a bit narrower in that they refer only to Métis peoples or Métis collectivities, which are one subcategory within “indigenous peoples of Canada”. That's what I mean by saying that one is broader than the other.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
That's the clarity I was looking for. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Before I go to Mr. Viersen, I just want to check something. Madame Gill, do you want to be added to the list?
No. Okay. I wasn't sure if you raised your hand or not. Thank you.
Mr. Viersen, we go over to you.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I want to pull apart that Métis “peoples” versus “collectivities”. I didn't even notice that in my initial reading of these amendments. Can you explain what they mean by “Métis collectivity”? I actually have a series of amendments to remove that word and say “communities”. What does the bill mean by “collectivity”, and why is that significant, versus Métis “people”? The major difference between mine and NDP-4.2 is that mine says “Métis peoples”, which is a smaller group than collectivities. Can we parse what “collectivity” is first?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
If I can start here, “collectivity” is a term that is generally used when we talk about rights holders in the sense of section 35. “Peoples” can sometimes be broader than that, depending on the context, but more importantly, “collectivities” is what is used elsewhere in the bill, so for consistency within the bill, it makes sense to refer to “collectivities” throughout if we're trying to describe the same concept throughout.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Yes, well, we're not describing the same concept, not in “Métis peoples” and then “Métis collectives”. What's the nuance there?
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I'll obviously give my counsel an opportunity to add after the fact, but I would submit that “Métis peoples” is broader. There are Métis collectivities—and in particular when we're using “collectivities”, as Ms. Redmond has said, we mean rights-bearing collectivities—and they comprise.... There are a number of rights-bearing Métis collectivities that make up the broader group that you might refer to as “Métis peoples”, which are one of the three aboriginal peoples in Canada protected under the Constitution. I think that there are different layers, that there are broader and more specific references within the suggested amendments.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
With my amendment, I was more imagining individuals. When I say “Métis peoples”, I'm not....
When I sent this in to the drafters, it was about that competing Métis identification, about an individual having Métis identification through the MNA and then through their local settlement or the Métis of Cadotte. That's not land-based at all. It's a local collective, I guess. It's both broader and narrower in that sense. Is that not correct?
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
On my read, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that this bill is very much about the self-determination of specific collectivities and governments that are component parts of the Métis peoples. Through their non-derogation language, some of the other amendments are trying to clarify that the rights of other Métis collectivities that have not mandated these governments to represent their rights continue to be protected and are not impacted by this bill.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Métis collective.... The word “collective” sounds like a new word. Has it been tested in court? Where did this word come from?
We have Indian “band”, which is a long-term thing. Is that what we're trying to do with this term, “Métis collective”? Are we trying to make that equivalent? What is the deal? Where did the term come from and what do we mean by it?