Evidence of meeting #92 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 recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Yes, the amended one. The other ones were handed around before.
Are we getting a paper copy?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
That's fine. I was trying to read the whole thing together, but that's fine.
I think my comments, as they relate to Ms. Idlout's original amendment 4.2 and the fact that I don't think the subamendment changes the content of that substantially.... It's a language clean-up that I think is appropriate, and I'm fine with that.
I just want to speak to the fact that adding this new clause 8.1 is working in conjunction with what was in clause 8, based on our discussion earlier and the discussion with the partners.
It's imperative to alleviate the concerns of some of the people we heard from, both at committee when they appeared and in a number of the submissions. The ability to ensure that those people who felt that they may be getting caught up in something they weren't choosing to be caught up in is exactly why I moved the amendment the other day to clarify it as “citizens only”, to free those who were concerned that they were being caught in something that they didn't choose.
From the conversations today around the amendment we made earlier to clause 8, with this addition of Ms. Idlout's amendment 4.2, I think there's very curt language in there that says.... I'm trying to put this together without the whole thing, but I believe it says that those who have not authorized a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule on their behalf.... The use of “for greater certainty” at the beginning of that ensures that those people have the assurance that they have the right to be represented by somebody else if they choose not to be represented by the three Métis governments in this legislation, even though they might be a Métis rights-holding person within one of those provinces.
I think the combination of the two actually works in this case to.... Maybe it's not perfect, but it provides some level of assurance to the people who were expressing those concerns to us. For that reason, I think supporting Ms. Idlout's motion would be in order for us.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This goes back to what we originally started out with. The challenge we have is that there will be some Métis individuals who are not represented by a Métis collective that's recognized as a Métis collective.
This is heading in the right direction, I think.
I'll ask the lawyer here.
Does the self-determination of Métis collectives include the individuals who could still pursue their harvesting rights even though they don't have a collective that's basically bargaining on their behalf? They identify as Métis, but they aren't happy with the MNA and also don't necessarily have a group where they live that they are pursuing....
This is kind of currently happening, but as we solidify what a Métis government is, how does that preclude them? That was the crux of our original discussion as well.
We were talking about the concepts of Métis individual, Métis people, Métis community and Métis collective.
Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?
4:30 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I think I follow.
To start, I will say this bill wouldn't affect individuals' ability to do anything, essentially. It deals with Métis collectives and Métis governments.
In terms of your question about whether this particular amendment changes anything about Métis individuals, it doesn't. It wouldn't.
Beyond that, the rights you're referring to—things like self-determination and self-government—are collective rights. Those rights are held by a collective. Sometimes there are certain expressions of those rights or subsets of aboriginal rights that are collective but have a component of individual exercise. Harvesting, as you mentioned, is one such example.
It's kind of complicated to untangle that the rights are held by a collective but sometimes exercised by an individual. The underpinning of all this is that nothing in this bill would affect any of that. This amendment wouldn't affect that either.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What's fascinating about this is that section 35 uses the term “Métis peoples”. The self-determination of Métis people would—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
It's on relevance and repetition. We heard this same line of questioning three meetings ago. It seems like his counterparts in the Conservative Party have said that these read well together.
I don't get why we're going back to something that was already raised three meetings ago. We're having that line of questioning all over again.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Mr. Viersen, can you get the clarification you need from the officials?
As was mentioned, we have revisited this a few times, but we want to make sure that you have certainty.
Could you get to your point, so we can continue on?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Chair, I will be asked to vote on this amended piece of legislation here in a minute, and I just want to get on the record once again that we're dealing with something here that I'm not necessarily convinced....
As well, I have a whole series of amendments that change the term Métis “collective” to “community”, because I thought that was a better amendment. I just want to get on the record once again at this stage that I'm concerned about this “Métis collectives” term that we're using here when dealing with this.
I think this amendment gets us going in a better direction. I'm not completely satisfied with it. I think I will be supportive of this amendment regardless, but I do want to get my concerns on the record.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Maybe the question that Mr. Viersen is trying to get clarification on is how the terms “collective” and “community” are different from each other.
Is that what you're trying to ask, Mr. Viersen?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Was it related to the difference or the nuance between “collectives” and “community”?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
On the difference between “community” and “collectivity”, are they used interchangeably, or do they have different meanings at different times?
4:30 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
A “collective” is generally how we refer to the group that holds collective aboriginal rights. The communities together make up that collective, but often when we talk about communities, that has more of a geographic component to it. It doesn't necessarily have to, but the standard term when we're talking about the holders of a collective right would be a collective.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I don't have anyone else on my list, so I'm ready to call the question on NDP-4.2, as amended.
We'll do a recorded vote. It is as amended. We'll call the question.
(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
On the next two clauses, clauses 9 and 10, we have no amendments.
What's your question?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
After we amended it, do we not have to vote on the final version before we move on?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We voted on the subamendment, and then we voted on the clause as amended. That takes care of amendment 8.1.
Go ahead, Mr. Viersen.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'm trying to get on the speaking list for clause 9.
(On clause 9)
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Let's go to clause 9.
Does anyone want to speak to it?
We'll put Mr. Viersen first.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm getting to clause 9, “a party to a treaty has jurisdiction...in the treaty, including the [ability] to make laws”. I guess the reason for this piece is around the making of laws. Could you confirm that this is the point of this section?