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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
All right.
I don't have any other speakers on my list for clause 13. I'm ready to call the clause as presented.
All in favour of clause 13?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Before we go to clause 14, I have two items that I need to deal with.
One is a correction that we need to make from an earlier clause. Essentially, an error was noticed in the identified line number of the French version of amendment CPC-5. It should have been line 3 of page 5. It was just an error in the reference to the line number in the French version.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the legislative clerk to make this correction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
Before we go to clause 14, Mr. Zimmer has asked for the floor.
Mr. Zimmer, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back.
I would like to move my motion that I sent out Friday.
First of all, I would like to quote from the recently elected Premier of the Northwest Territories, R.J. Simpson, who has asked for a complete exemption from the carbon tax for the Northwest Territories. This is from the premier in an interview from October: “I mean, ideally, a complete exemption for the territory is what we would hope for. The costs are already high—higher costs are not the solution up here.”
With respect to the premier's request, I move:
That, given that the Premier of the Northwest Territories has requested a complete exemption from the Carbon Tax for his jurisdiction, the Committee invite the Premier of the Northwest Territories, R.J. Simpson, to appear on this request for Carbon Tax exemption and the challenges Northwest Territories faces with the cost of living, and that the committee report to the House that it calls on the government to immediately carve out Northwest Territories from the Carbon Tax.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
I do have a speaking list on this. First I have Mr. Battiste, followed by Mr. Viersen and Ms. Atwin.
December 14th, 2023 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
First off, happy new year, everyone. I'm glad to be back.
I'm hoping to make progress on the clause-by-clause we're doing. We don't have the member from the Northwest Territories here, who's part of this committee. I would love to hear from him at some point on this.
I move to adjourn debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
All right. We'll call the vote to adjourn debate on the motion. We'll have a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll suspend that and continue with our clause-by-clause.
(On clause 14)
Next up is clause 14, and there are no amendments to it.
Does anyone want to speak to clause 14?
Go ahead, Mr. Viersen.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To go back to my point, I note that this tax treatment agreement is not part of a treaty. It's not a treaty or land claim agreement. Again, this is probably a standard thing that's part of the taxation thing. We've been trying to get clear land exemptions in this bill, saying that nothing in this treaty will affect land.
I'm wondering if we could get an opinion from some of our officials here on why we have this and not a specific section on land.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I'm happy to start, Mr. Viersen.
My understanding is that this is a fairly standard provision. I know you know that's not an answer in and of itself. My understanding of the reason for this provision is that the tax exemptions these tax treatment agreements deal with are not constitutionally protected. They are side agreements, and they don't have the same constitutional status that treaties or land claim agreements are given.
Having said that, I'll ask whether our counsel has anything to add.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Yes.
This is one of the areas where it specifically mentions land claims. A concern that many stakeholders have with this bill is that entering into a treaty is going to come with land. They are looking for a clear signal from this piece of legislation that says they're going to move into self-government but self-government does not come with land.
Here we are talking about land agreements, so can the officials assure us once again that this bill does not affect land?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll go to our officials first, and then Ms. Idlout is next on my list.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I just have a point of clarification here.
The reference to “land claims agreement” is in here because it's a reference made in sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution. No meaning is changed by adding that. It's for consistency with the Constitution.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I'll add as well that it specifically says, “is not a treaty or a land claims agreement”, which I think is the response to your concern, Mr. Viersen.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
As to “it is not” in terms of tax, we're just saying that any taxation agreement is not a treaty or a land claim agreement. That makes total sense. I just wonder why this bill.... We clearly state that taxation is not part of these things. Is there not the ability to, again, say that this bill will not affect land across the country, that it is a self-government thing only?
I'm asking you for a recommendation on an amendment. Perhaps I have to move that amendment. We've been dancing around this with a bunch of different amendments, but here is a clear point where we put in a “this is not” clause. Could we not do that with the land piece as well?
Go ahead, Mr. Schintz.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I don't understand it to be my place to comment at the moment about potential amendments. I am happy to answer any questions about the provisions that we're discussing.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I have two others on my list, and maybe some other clarification will come from those discussions.
First up is Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I think my question is for the chair, not for the officials.
I thank Mr. Viersen for his line of questioning because it reminds me of an amendment that I had, NDP-4.02, that was ruled out of order. It was ruled out of scope. I wanted to make an amendment regarding treaty rights and title, and I had requested that we make it specifically clear, yet now we have section 14 talking about treaty or land claims.
I wonder if you could give more information as to why you ruled my amendment out of order when it seems to be in the same vein that we're talking about with treaties and land claims.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Ms. Idlout, give me a moment to consult with the clerks.
We have a point of clarification, so we're going to suspend for a minute. We'll be back as soon as we get clarification.