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

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

The old chair got it done in one day.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That challenge is accepted.

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

The 21 days is an interesting.... I guess 30 days are a standard month, and that's what we were thinking about. Those are not sitting days.

Is there any reason why we would chose 21 days versus 30 days?

[Julia Redmond]

There's nothing bad, from a legal standpoint, about this. I think the difference is well understood.

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

I'm just trying to think of what other things are delayed for 21 days. I'm not sure. If ours doesn't pass, then.... Why is the other one 21 days? That's not your question to answer.

All right. That's all I had, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

Members, shall CPC-3 carry?

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Thank you, members.

Next, shall clause 6 carry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, I've called the vote. We'll do clause 6. There are no amendments to it.

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

I do believe we can have a discussion about clause 6.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I've called the vote on clause 6.

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

You can't just call the vote. Doesn't it have to be moved?

[A voice]

You can if you're the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, I can—and I'm the chair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

There will be lots of time yet. We have lots of other amendments to get to.

I have asked if clause 6 shall carry, so we'll have the vote. As I said, there will be lots of time for discussion.

We'll have a recorded vote, please.

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 7)

We do have an amendment here. First up is CPC-3.1, put forward by Mr. Viersen.

Mr. Viersen, would you like to move CPC-3.1?

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

We've dealt with clause 6.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes, we're on clause 7 now. You have amendment CPC-3.1.

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

Yes. Here we go.

I would like to move this, Mr. Chair, and I'd like the floor. Amendment CPC-3.1 would delete lines 3 to 7 on page 4. This goes to the fact that, in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between a treaty and provision of this act, the treaty prevails. Again, it goes to the supremacy of Parliament. I'm not exactly sure what this all entails, but I'm concerned around the conflict.

I'm going to ask our officials to explain. I'm concerned about this piece, so I put this amendment forward. Is this a normal thing that the treaties prevail? It seems to demote an act of Parliament below a treaty. It says, if we're going to have a piece of legislation and it comes into conflict with a treaty, the treaty prevails.

Can you explain why this is needed? Is this a normal thing in these kinds of pieces of legislation? Why is this needed?

[Julia Redmond]

It is a very normal provision. In fact, it's in every version of an implementing statute for a treaty that we have on the books. It essentially is a reflection of the fact that a treaty, in this situation, is protected by the Constitution.

Occasionally, there are situations where there can be interpretation challenges, like the situation of inconsistency or conflict that it describes. Including a provision like this to account for that unlikely but still possible inconsistency or conflict is very standard and helpful in terms of ensuring that the treaties and the act can be interpreted properly.

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

If it's constitutionally protected, why is this necessary? I guess that is the question.

Are we just duplicating it? Is it for clarity?

[Julia Redmond]

Are you asking specifically about this clause or the bill?

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

You mentioned earlier that treaties are constitutionally protected documents. There's a presumption that this would be the case.

[Julia Redmond]

This gives added clarity.