Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

Next on my list is Mr. Vidal.

The floor is yours.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I had my hand up before I saw that the Liberals were going to support the brilliant motion of colleague Mr. Schmale, in response to a number of concerns that we heard from people.

I actually have one really quick question for the officials. It's a clarification thing for me, from an understanding perspective. I think I know the answer, but I just want confirmation.

The February 23 agreements talk about the contemplated treaties that would be negotiated once this legislation is enacted. I think that's a clear understanding. With the addition of this amendment, is it safe to assume that this would also apply to any future treaties?

We have these contemplated treaties, but what if 20 years from now there's another negotiation that falls under this legislation? Would this then apply to any future treaties? Would it have to come back through this process so that Parliament has final oversight on something way down the road someday?

Does that question...? Hopefully, that makes sense.

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

Thanks for the question.

In part, I'm familiar. There's another amendment regarding supplementary self-government agreements as well, which considers a similar process.

In the end, if both amendments were to go forward, that would certainly require both for the future treaties, which we're proposing to give force and effect to through this legislation and any supplementary agreement.... I imagine we will receive questions at that point, later, and we can try to add more clarity.

It is, however, typical that treaties include amendment provisions, the ability for those treaties to evolve via negotiations and an order in council—an example being the Whitecap treaty that recently came before Parliament as well.

As for future treaties, absolutely. Supplementary self-government agreements will be dealt with at a separate stage, but it is typical that these treaties create space for amendment that doesn't require the parliamentary process.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

For clarity, any outright new treaty would, but an amendment to an existing treaty, which would be built into the initial treaty negotiation may not.

I think that's what I heard.

[Michael Schintz]

That's fair to say. You would see that amendment provision as part of the tabling with Parliament and referral to committee.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

That's of the original treaty.

Thank you. I think that added clarity.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

While we're taking this pause, I was remiss in welcoming our officials back to the table today.

I'll take this moment to welcome you back. We thank you for being here.

[Michael Schintz]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

Next I have Mr. Viersen on my speaking list.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you again.

I'd love to welcome my good colleague, Mr. Melillo, to our committee as well.

I think it was at the last meeting that I made a comment about the word “Métis” showing up in the Constitution of Canada, which caused a reaction in my colleague, Mr. Battiste. I'm not quite sure what his concern was, but here we are.

I just want to make sure for his benefit that this particular amendment notes the meaning assigned to the definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”, subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. That piece of the Constitution says, “In this Act, aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.”

I think the comments I made the other day still stand. That is what this bill hopes to realize.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, hold on for one second, please.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I just have a point of order.

Could we welcome Monsieur Ste-Marie to the committee, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's not a point of order. I will extend a proper welcome when the time comes.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Oh, it's not. My apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Welcome.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

On the same point, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Melillo, I'd like to welcome you to the table. You've slept in, but it's always good to see you here.

Mr. Viersen, please carry on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to welcome Mr. Ste-Marie—not the member for Gabriel Ste-Marie. I made that mistake one time, Mr. Chair. I called him the “member for”.

Nonetheless, I think this amendment does justice. There was a similar amendment that did not have that piece in there. I think it's important to note that we are dealing with a piece of legislation that is directly connected to the Constitution of Canada and is ensuring that we can bring realization to section 35.

I remember that when I was first elected, I didn't realize that section 35 existed. I had seen the paper that they hand out at school around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is on the next page. It's kind of like the first page of a Google search. Nobody reads past the first page of Google. That's what happens with the charter.

I remember that in school we read the charter often, but I didn't realize when I got here that there was a page two or a part II, which starts with section 35. I remember that when I first got to the committee, that was a complaint that many people who came to this committee pointed out. They said that section 35 rights need to be recognized.

I remember the chief of the Assembly of First Nations coming here. I'll never forget the term he used. He just spoke about an empty box or a full box.

I guess that is what we're dealing with here today. We're trying to establish what is in that box and what is not in that box.

Here we are making this amendment to the bill to ensure that Parliament will fulfill its duties under section 35 of the Constitution.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Shall amendment CPC-2 carry? We'll have a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

As I noted, we will not be dealing with amendment NDP-3 because it was identical to CPC-2. As we learned previously through the intervention I was going to make but was late getting to, when a new amendment is carried and part of it is a new clause, that clause carries without a vote.

(On clause 5)

Under clause 5 we have amendment CPC-2.1. This was put forward by Mr. Viersen. Would the member like to move CPC-2.1?

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

Yes, I would like to move this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I'm going to provide a ruling from the chair. I'll ask for your indulgence as we go through this.

Clause 5 of Bill C-53 provides that treaties entered into by a Métis government and His Majesty in right of Canada may be brought into force on a date fixed by the Governor in Council, once the Governor in Council is satisfied that the conditions for the coming into force of a treaty by the Métis government and the Government of Canada have been met.

The amendment proposes that both Houses of Parliament must affirm, by resolution, that the requirements for the coming into force of a treaty have been met before the Governor in Council can fix the date on which a treaty can come into force and add the necessary information to the schedule.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, subjecting the coming into force of a treaty to the affirmation by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge that ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. We will vote on sustaining, or not, the ruling of the chair.

For those who are new to the table, sustaining would confirm that this is an inadmissible amendment and not sustaining would mean that the ruling of the chair is incorrect.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Chair, will you confirm what the question is?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

We will now move on to amendment CPC-3.

Mr. Schmale, would you like to move that?