Evidence of meeting #88 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
This amendment would replace line 8 on page 3. Basically, all it does is change the word “collectivities” to “communities”. Then, in line 10, it changes “collectivities” again to “communities”.
I think this goes back to the thing we were talking about before. There may be more of a discussion that we need to have on this. We touched on this the other day when we were talking about people's communities and collectivities and individuals. I just think that “communities” is more representative.
I've been talking with my colleagues over the last few days. By putting together three or maybe more different groups into one bill, one of the challenges is that we end up with these situations where we are struggling to define... Different parts of the country communicate on these issues differently. Some want “communities”. Some want “collectivities”. Some want “peoples”. Those three terms do make a difference.
Again, I heard from Cadotte Lake, the ones up by Fort McMurray and even the folks down from Lethbridge, that they talk extensively about “communities”. We haven't heard a lot from the folks from Saskatchewan, but they are quite adamant about the word “collectivity”. We didn't get into it too much with the folks from Ontario.
The point is that there is a lot of differentiating around that word, so I put forward a series of amendments to change the word “collectivities” to “communities”. I think that “communities” is more reflective of how, particularly in Alberta, the Métis organize themselves. It's the word they use. I would hope we can align this bill with that.
Those are my comments. I hope this amendment passes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you, Mr. Viersen.
We'll call the vote on CPC-1.4.
(Amendment negatived: 7 nays; 3 yeas)
We'll then call clause 4, as originally proposed. We'll do a recorded vote, please.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Before I share my vote, I have a quick question. I have a later amendment on this. Are we going to vote on that amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We are in the middle of a vote.
Yes, if it's NDP-4.1, it's a different clause, so they'd be separate.
(Clause 4 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have a new clause 4.1, which would be created by CPC-2.
Would Mr. Schmale like to move CPC-2?
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Yes, I would, if I could quickly speak to this.
I think this clause comes out of the testimony we heard as we discussed this bill, especially around some of the concerns about what happens next. Should this bill pass in its current form, it doesn't give a final look. When I say that, I mean in Parliament. That's where some of the concerns we heard were, especially from the Ontario chiefs, around that next stage. What does it mean, and what happens?
If it's an order in council—it could be an order in council—there isn't that final look. This lays out some of the protections that were being asked for, and that's probably not the right word to use. It's addressing more the concerns. In the opposition, it's our job to hold the government to account, and giving an order in council full rein or a wide swath to agree to terms that might not be open to scrutiny is something this motion speaks to. It will, hopefully, as I said at the beginning, address some of the concerns we heard right off the top with the Ontario chiefs.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Next on my speaking list, I have Mr. Viersen.
Mr. Vidal, are you wanting to get on the speaking list too? Okay.
Mr. Viersen.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
This amendment would allow Parliament to be a little bit more involved in the process.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
You're supportive of our.... That's good. I just want to make sure that you know what you're voting on here.
The challenge that we have with some of these things is that Parliament is somewhat outside of the process. We have a deal that was signed back in 2018 with a number of folks around the country, and Parliament was unaware that these agreements were being signed.
This amendment would allow, in a similar way to when we sign trade agreements around the world, the agreement to be brought to Parliament to be scrutinized. Parliament would be involved in the process, and Parliament would have an ability to study these treaties. As the prerogative of the government is to enter into agreements and treaties, it is Parliament that then holds the government to account on many of these things. It's challenging for Parliament or for the legislators to hold the government to account on these things if they have no idea that they are going on. This amendment is so that, hopefully, we can have greater clarity and prevent the surprises that could happen.
The other thing we heard over and over again from folks who came before our committee is that they were unaware that this was going on. They were not consulted. They were saying that the government was entering into new agreements with folks who live in their area and they had no idea that this was happening. This amendment won't address this in its entirety, but it would be another level of notifying folks that, hey, something is going on, something is happening and the government is talking with folks in their area.
It would allow for a level of scrutiny that.... We heard from a number of people from across the country that there was no scrutiny and there was no consultation. The folks who came here were repeatedly saying that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that the government has a duty to consult and must get free, prior and informed consent. That includes discussions around rights recognition in areas that already have folks with particular rights recognition and how that interplays. We need to ensure that Parliament is being notified about agreements that are being entered into. We have to ensure that we don't have surprises like we've had in the past.
Mr. Chair, I would suggest, perhaps, that when governments begin this kind of exercise, they have to gazette it. They have to put it in the Canada Gazette to ensure that they tip off the world that, hey, Canada is pursuing agreements with particular entities and groups across the country. That would allow for other groups to know that this is happening so that, if they have things to say about it, they can approach their elected official and say that they have concerns, that they are worried about this or that they want to know what's going on.
When there are groups that are here that say that they had no idea these discussions were even going on, we should have the government....
These are all Canadians. These are Canadians we're having this discussion with. It's not like there's some strategic advantage. It's not like there are some national security concerns where we cannot have these discussions out in the open.
This is the reason we need to have discussions out in the open about the rights recognition that's happening. What discussions are the government having? Who is the government having these discussions with? Should all the parties at the table be at the table? We have other bills in front of Parliament right now that are doing that exact thing: building consultation tables. Then Parliament gets to have a discussion about who the appropriate people are to sit at the table. We get to have that discussion, and all of that happens beforehand. This particular amendment would ensure that Parliament is at least tipped off that this is happening.
This is perhaps more of a band-aid fix, because by the time a treaty is entered into—it's that “entered into” language here—it's probably already a thing. You're not necessarily going to be able to turn that back. It's much more like a trade deal we sign. Once it's signed it's signed. Sometimes it has to be ratified. Sometimes there's a clause that says it has to be ratified by Parliament. If that was in the treaty, we would be able to ratify it. It wouldn't come into force, or it wouldn't be completely entered into until it was ratified by Parliament. If it didn't, maybe this is too late.
This bill very much deals with the agreements that are already signed between the government and the Métis people across the country. That's what this bill is about. I think, more broadly, the government should be ensuring that Parliament knows what they're up to. Our job is to figure out what they're up to, to some degree. Also, I remember that in 2015 this government showed up here and said they were going to be “open by default”. I don't think this was open by default.
We heard from a number of organizations. I don't think we got to this bill because the government was open by default. These were secret negotiations, and folks showed up to our committee to express to us that they felt like they were not only not duly consulted, which would have been one thing, but not even notified that these discussions were happening. That is what we have to work to prevent, and maybe after the fact we're having a bit of trouble putting that in this bill.
I guess that's what this amendment speaks to. As parliamentarians, we would like to know what the government is doing. By the time a treaty is entered into, which is what this bill is going to be doing.... We're saying that when we anticipate a treaty, let's have the treaty come before Parliament quickly, because we want to see—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I would just like to remind all members that Mr. Viersen has the floor now. I would like some nice orderly conduct in our committee so that the staff can do their jobs.
Mr. Viersen, please continue.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I appreciate it, Mr. Chair, because I do think this is an important discussion to be had, and the things they are bringing up allow me to address their concerns, obviously. I would say that having this treaty tabled and referenced to this committee, much the way we're doing this bill, it would have been interesting to have had that previous agreement that was signed. Over the last couple of evenings I read the agreement with the MNA. It would have been interesting to have had that before our committee prior to its signing, so as parliamentarians we could scrutinize what the government was saying and doing on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of the Crown. Are they abiding by generally accepted norms on these things? Have they considered all of the ramifications?
It's obvious that the government has failed a lot in this bill, because we have a long list of folks who have showed up here being opposed to this. I would suggest perhaps the government should not have put the Alberta agreement, the Saskatchewan agreement and the Ontario agreement all in one bill. Again, going back to my last amendment—collectivities versus communities—the regional differences in this country lead to these sorts of things. We want to ensure the government is treating folks with respect and not trying to fit square pegs into round holes, which I sometimes feel this particular bill is attempting to do. It's concerned with trying to do a one-size-fits-all, and it's trying to maybe make different Métis communities compete against each other, maybe play one Métis entity against another. Also, perhaps by putting all three of these groups into one bill, it doesn't allow for clarity around the verbiage we use.
Why we've moved this amendment is to ensure that, when a treaty is signed onto, it doesn't happen in some backroom bunker here in Ottawa, but it would be tabled in the House of Commons for the scrutiny of a committee to ensure that this is something we can all get behind to bring this country together, rather than dividing this country. This Prime Minister's really good at dividing this country. Rather than dividing the country, bills like this would ensure that Canadians are united and that Canadians can be proud of their country.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I would like to question the relevance of the last couple of minutes from Mr. Viersen. I wish he could get back on track, or perhaps move things along.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
That's a fair point. I would encourage all members when they're speaking to remember we are on new clause 4.1, the CPC-2 amendment.
I would like to take advantage of this brief interlude to point something out, and I should have done this at the start. If anyone is wondering, you might have noticed CPC-2 and NDP-3 are identical. Because we're dealing with CPC-2, if CPC-2 is moved, NDP-3 cannot be moved as they are identical. When we get to a vote on whether CPC-2 should carry, NDP-3 is gone. I just wanted to clarify that.
We'll go to a point of order from Ms. Idlout, and then we'll come back to Mr. Viersen, who has the floor.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I wanted to quickly clarify that I actually like the Conservative's amendment better, because they suggest more days. When we are finally able to vote, I'll be voting in favour of this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Are you good with that, Mr. Carr? Okay.
Mr. Viersen, we'll go back to you. I'll ask you to keep it on point to the amendment we're on. That would be just grand.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I thank you, Mr. Chair, for pointing that out.
I knew that the Conservatives and the NDP had some similar ones, but I had forgotten that this one was the same.
December 7th, 2023 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'm comparing it here. Jaime is saying that it's exactly the same, but I don't necessarily always take him at his word, so I'm going to make sure.
I would point out that in many cases the NDP and Conservatives agree on the use of words. I remember that with “free, prior and informed consent” while the NDP were very supportive of that terminology and the Conservatives were not as supportive of that terminology, we did both agree that those words meant what those words meant, unlike the Liberals, who said, “Well, they're nice-sounding words, but they don't necessarily mean what you think.”
I'm happy to see that, once again, the Conservatives and the NDP agree on the meaning of words. We generally mean what we say and say what we mean, and I do appreciate that about the NDP. I can't say that's the case with the Liberals all of the time.
That being said, I think I have made my case fairly compelling. We need to ensure that Parliament is in control of this country. We want to ensure that Canadians who are being affected by legislation or by deals that the government is....
We need to ensure that Parliament has a say in those deals, that Parliament understands what the government is doing, and that the Liberals live up to their ideal of “open by default”. I think that's an honourable ideal. I would say that government should strive for that, but that has not been my experience with the Liberal government.
We had multiple witnesses come here and say, “Hey, we did not know about this until the legislation dropped.” I think this would be an improvement to the bill, and I hope that I will see support from the Liberals on this one.
