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

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

I would like to move that.

I'll quickly speak to it. I do believe there is, somewhat, agreement around the table. I'll read it and then let you know.

Basically it's addressing concerns that we heard earlier about allowing Parliament a little more oversight and addressing those concerns. I'll do this very quickly as I know there's support around the table.

It was interim National Chief Joanna Bernard from the Assembly of First Nations who said that the consultation with first nations was not done appropriately. We heard that in testimony, so that's what this stems from. It would give more clarity and more oversight within the parliamentary process.

If there is anyone voting against, I'm happy to answer more questions, but I will leave it there for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Before I move to Mr. Viersen as the next speaker, I want to inform members that if CPC-3 is adopted, NDP-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Keep that in mind as we make our decision on this one.

Mr. Viersen, you are next on my list for CPC-3.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just a little disappointed that I didn't get to discuss my last amendment. This one is a reasonable step below.

Again, the supremacy of Parliament is something that I think is important to protect. This bill would ensure that Parliament at least sees the treaty before having it come into force. It would give Parliament the opportunity to at least have a response and be able to move motions in order to scrutinize and call the minister in to give testimony around it before it comes into force.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, I would just ask you to speak to CPC-3. We already dealt with and dispensed with CPC-2.1. We're not going to have debate on that.

If you would like to speak to the amendment before us, go ahead.

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

That's what I am speaking to. I just voiced my disappointment about the other one.

This amendment would make it so that the treaty would not come into force earlier than 30 sitting days after it has been tabled. The motion that I convinced my colleagues to support earlier passed, which says that it has to be tabled. Now we're asking for....

My first amendment was to say that Parliament should approve it all. That was deemed inadmissible, so here we are with this one, which I think is a reasonable.... It's not as good as the first one, but it's reasonable to protect the supremacy of Parliament and to ensure that we can actually have a debate around it as we'd have 30 sitting days between the tabling and the coming into force of a particular treaty.

I'm excited to have this one go forward to allow Parliament the ability to see, debate, question the minister and bring in witnesses if it needs to. The previous amendment that we passed had that “After it is tabled, the treaty stands referred to—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the enthusiasm from my colleagues on the other side, but I would ask if the room could contain its excitement just a bit so that we can hear the gentleman, Mr. Viersen, who has the floor.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Fair enough. I would ask all members to maintain decorum within our proceedings. This is very important and serious legislation, which the founders of this country did not finish. This is a very important piece of legislation that will get to that work that was not done.

I will ask Mr. Viersen to continue with his intervention. I would encourage others to listen, and we will get through this.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that intervention.

Thanks to my colleague for making that point of order.

This amendment would allow for that committee we referenced in the previous amendment we passed to do its work. It would be no earlier than 30 days. We've seen over and over again from this Liberal government that it likes to ram things through. It likes to move closure motions and programming motions to make sure that it can, without any hours of debate, just push things through.

Out of an abundance of caution and out of the desire for Parliament to be able to operate.... That's why we put forward motions like this. It's so that Parliament can see the document, question witnesses and have affected communities show up to inspect the bill. That is the desire of this amendment. I am certain that my Liberal colleagues will have no objection to that.

I cede the floor at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Melillo next on my speakers list.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I promise to my colleagues across the way to be brief, although they were cheering and encouraging me to speak earlier.

I don't want to echo what has already been said. I do agree that this is very important for increased transparency. I say that as someone representing much of the Métis homeland as well as 42 first nations. There's definitely a lot at stake in my riding when it comes to this.

Mr. Chair, you mentioned the line conflict, and rightfully so. Looking at the proposals we have versus what's been brought forward by the NDP of 30 days versus 21 days.... I don't want to put my friend on the spot. I don't know if she's at the table right now. I'm curious to know from the NDP what their position would be on this due to the line conflict and why they would move forward with 21 days versus 30 days. I would be curious to get an answer on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

The member did speak to that earlier and indicated that she would support the CPC motion versus the NDP motion. That is the challenge we get when we have people coming and going. We lose some of the continuity of conversation.

Next I have Mr. Viersen on my list.

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

I want to ask the officials if they have any idea why this wasn't included in the original draft of the bill, which was referenced to Parliament and that sort of thing.

[Julia Redmond, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I will say that tabling a provision like this for a treaty is not necessarily standard in treaty-implementing bills. Obviously, this bill has some novel features. The treaties that it contemplates haven't yet been negotiated, and that is a bit unusual.

It's most likely because it's not a standard part of this kind of bill, so it wouldn't have been included in the first place.

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

What's another example of a treaty implementation bill that I would have dealt with in the last eight years?

[Julia Redmond]

This committee would have seen the implementation statute for the Whitecap Dakota treaty earlier this year in June. That was an implementing bill for a treaty.

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

Okay, and do you know about prior to that?

[Julia Redmond]

I'm not sure what the most recent one before that would be. There are certainly many examples over the last several years, all dating back as far as the 1970s.

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

I was on this committee for six years, and I don't remember a treaty implementation bill, but I was gone for two years.

Mr. Reiher, what are your comments?

[Martin Reiher, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

The last one that would have been approved was more than 10 years ago.

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

It is an interesting thing, then. I was here for six years, and we never had....

[Michael Schintz]

I believe—and I stand to be corrected by the committee—that the Whitecap implementing legislation may not have been referred to the committee. It was passed quite quickly.

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

Okay.

[Michael Schintz]

It was referred to committee...? Okay.

[A voice]

For one day.

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

I wasn't here for the last two years, so prior to that....