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.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
If this bill passes and then the treaty process starts, which I think was more of a concern from the Ontario chiefs, what comes next? What does the treaty mean? What happens?
It does, to my knowledge, trigger the duty to consult at that point. Once that is triggered and that starts, do you anticipate, with or without this clause here, land potentially being on the negotiating table, as was claimed by some of the chiefs at the committee earlier?
Michael Schintz Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Can you ask the question again? I missed a part.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Yes, that was a long question. I'll try to remember it.
In testimony, we had some Ontario chiefs, specifically in northern Ontario, concerned that if this bill passed—and we're just talking particularly about Ontario at this point—it would trigger the treaty process. In that treaty process, the chiefs from northern Ontario are alleging that MNO has laid claim to land that was already either in treaty or subject to a land claim with first nation negotiations. Would the first nations, then, have to challenge the MNO in court? Would there be negotiations on whether that land is up for grabs?
If yes, depending on this very long question, which probably should be broken up into many segments, would this clause help?
Martin Reiher Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Maybe I'll answer.
The relationship with our indigenous partners in general is an ongoing relationship, and the treaties that we enter into are living documents. We cannot determine in advance what will be negotiated in the future.
What we know at the moment, based on discussion with our partners, is that the next step is to negotiate a treaty on core governance on the basis of the agreements that have been entered into and are available to review now. That is what we know.
There is no intention at the moment to negotiate more than that, but the relationship will continue to evolve. If and when there is jurisdiction contemplated on land in these treaties, there would be a consultation phase that will allow indigenous partners that might be affected to provide comments and to be accommodated as needed under the obligation of the Crown for the duty to consult and accommodate.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Can I just add one point?
I think part of the question was whether or not this legislation coming into force or the core governance treaties that we'll be negotiating as a next step would change in any way the requirement of first nations. They gave testimony that they've had to do some amount of consulting with Métis governments already. The status quo that exists before this legislation and after this legislation would not change in that respect.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Can you repeat that one more time, please? I'm sorry.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Yes.
First nations, as part of the testimony that was given to this committee, have made the point that they are having to consult. The Chiefs of Ontario made this point about the MNO. They're having to consult regarding land selections.
I wanted to make the point—because I had thought it was part of your question, MP Schmale—that the status quo in that respect will not change after this legislation, nor would it change on the basis of the self-government treaties that we intend to be negotiating consistent with the 2023 agreements.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you.
I just want to clarify one thing that was just brought up in your comments. Were you referring to Bill C-53 as potentially a living document?
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I referred to the treaties that we'll be entering into.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay.
Maybe I'll let Ms. Gill go, then I'll probably come back with more questions.
Liberal
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before addressing Ms. Redmond, I'd like to ask a question of a committee member.
Mr. Viersen, you said that amendment CPC-1.1 was redundant, since it talks about making a clarification that is already included in the bill. I can imagine that the same is true of amendment NDP-4.2.
Ms. Redmond, both amendments propose a clarification. However, if I understand correctly what you're saying about amendment CPC-1.1, it wouldn't add anything. We want to reduce the fears of certain groups or individuals, but the adoption of these amendments would not change anything to the content or affect the substance of the bill.
Did I understand correctly?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
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.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
The witnesses, when they were here, were concerned that we.... I guess what this bill is trying to do is.... In the Constitution there is the word “Métis”, and we're trying to define who that is. Who are those rights-bearing people? There was a bunch of concern around who gets to decide that. There were concerns around whether one community gets to decide it.
That's what my amendment is trying to get at: It's not just the MNA in Alberta that gets to decide who is Métis, essentially. That's what my amendment is trying to achieve. Is that not correct?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I understand our position to be that those Métis groups you refer to in Alberta are already unaffected by this bill. The status quo is that those other Métis groups are welcome to pursue their own path to self-determination, and this provision is not required to make that true.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
The direct quote I remember was that they said that we don't want to have competing Métis identities. That's why I put this forward. That was the quote I used when I was trying to draft this amendment to say that we don't want this bill to create a competing Métis identity. Does that make sense?
December 5th, 2023 / 4:10 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I understand what you're saying, but I have nothing further to add unless anyone else does.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
That's just some of the logic behind building my amendment, which is around Métis identity. The abrogation and derogation...I think the drafters like that terminology. That's where we're trying to get to.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
You're saying that my NDP-4.2 amendment is basically a duplication of something else that already exists in Bill C-53. Where can we find that specific clause that's a duplication of it?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
What I'm referring to are some of the other amendments that have been tabled. For example, NDP-2, which you've also put forward, is a broader non-derogation clause. It would effectively cover the same scope as NDP-4.2
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
If I didn't add either of my amendments, then those non-derogation clauses would have been in this bill.
