Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

[Michael Schintz]

I genuinely didn't hear a question, Mr. Schmale.

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

It was just more to add some context. I think what they're talking about is the legally binding agreement that comes into effect once Bill C-53 passes.

[Michael Schintz]

I think it's important to clarify. The agreements that you're referring to are not given effect through this legislation.

The concept is that the legislation would be a framework to give effect to those future self-government treaties that we've committed to negotiate. The agreements that were signed in February 2023 are binding as contracts.

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

While you're saying that, it's actually referenced in the preamble of Bill C-53. It's the “recognition and implementation agreements”.

[Michael Schintz]

The only reference to those agreements in this legislation is in the preamble.

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

That's right, but it's referencing the fact that the implementation of the agreements comes into effect.... It's right here.

[Michael Schintz]

I assume you mean this:

Whereas the Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Ontario and Métis Nation - Saskatchewan have signed self-government recognition and implementation agreements with the Government of Canada on February 23 and 24, 2023, and those agreements contemplate the parties negotiating self-government treaties;

Is that the provision you're referring to?

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

Yes, that's the one. Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, we're talking about the implementation of everything.

I'm sorry. To summarize, I think what the NDP and Mr. Viersen are trying to do is just address the point that a treaty could potentially involve land. They're trying to address the concerns that we heard through testimony. That's what I'm trying to say. I think this might be a legitimate point to actually look at in order to satisfy those who are pushing back with opposing views, so that we could potentially get to a point where everyone is satisfied and comfortable with this.

That is just a comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We have Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I don't see a purpose in suspending. The discussion points that we're having are not about taxation. We're on the clauses of taxation, and we're trying to get through the points of taxation, and then we're getting into general ones.

However, for greater clarity, even if Mr. Viersen and Ms. Idlout come to an amendment that speaks about land, it will still be deemed out of scope under what the chair has ruled on. If we bring in something that comes into land, then we're bringing something that's outside the scope of this legislation. Once again, the purpose of this legislation is self-government. The minister himself said that lands and resources are not within the contemplation of this legislation.

What we're trying to work towards is recognizing that there will be future treaties signed that are on self-government alone, based on what we've heard from the testimony. For all other rights, we've already captured that with a non-derogation clause that we've all agreed to.

I think that a lot of this is a moot point, because even if there was a potential amendment that came back and that talked about lands or resources or anything like that, it would be deemed out of scope. What happens if we say we want to start talking about lands? Do we then start talking about resources? Do we then start talking about fishing? Do we then start talking about things that this legislation is not intended to be a part of?

What we will be doing is basically putting on the shelf this important legislation for the Métis, based on the assumption that maybe some day, at some point, there may be a treaty with them that talks about lands or resources. However, that's not in the contemplation of this legislation or the future treaties moving forward. We're stuck on a point that, to me, is a moot point, because this is not within the contemplation of the legislation, and the chair has ruled on that.

I don't see why we're stopping at clauses 13 and 14, which refer to taxation—not land, not resources—and stopping this whole process. I just don't understand why we can't get through the clauses that have no amendments presented by anyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Viersen, you're next on my list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To respond a little bit to what Mr. Battiste has been talking about, the non-derogation clause works for individual and government rights, to an extent, but I would say that the major concern is around land, and land isn't necessarily a right. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. The crux of the issue everybody is concerned about is that there are a lot of land claims going on in this country, all across the country, and the concern is that there will be another interest in those land claims. We've been assured that is not the case, but it does appear, particularly with the Ontario Métis nation, that they are definitely pursuing land, despite the assurances of Mr. Battiste, so we need to ensure that we have clarity on that.

The other piece is that, just because there's no amendment on a particular clause, that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. We pass these clauses on an up or down vote. I want to know what we are voting on before I vote on it. Hence, we ask questions and we get clarification. We ask many of the witnesses who come before us if they have amendments, and they generally speak in broad terms about the bill. This is our only chance to get clarification on particular points of the particular bill.

I have been working on an amendment. I hope I'll be able to move that shortly, but I have to get some of the wording, and then I have to get it to the clerk.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if we can suspend for a few minutes so I can work on that amendment or if we want to come back to it. I'm hesitant to say that we should come back to it, because it could change in real time here, and I would rather not be distracted with what's going on in the committee while trying to negotiate an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, I would just say that we offer the advice that it's often best to work with a legislative clerk on an amendment to make sure that it's all in order so that there are no line conflicts or things like that. It's often best to go to counsel for drafting and those things, although you are able to bring them forward. If the committee deems that we can wait and give you the time to work with it, then that's the committee's decision.

Thank you for that.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Carr, who is next on my list as part of this discussion.

Mr. Carr, you have the floor.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Forgive me if my procedural language isn't correct, but I'd like to move a motion that we stand—which I understand to mean “come back to”—clauses 14 and 15, which provides Mr. Viersen, Ms. Idlout and others time to put forward their amendment, which, if I understand correctly, you will ultimately rule on. If it's out of order, of course we're going to move on anyway, and if it is found to be in order, then, at that point in time, we can have that discussion.

I think there are other clauses in the legislation where there is agreement and we don't require time to debate, so, if my understanding is correct and the motion I'm seeking to move is legitimate, I would like to move a motion that would see us stand clauses 14 and 15 until Mr. Viersen, Ms. Idlout or any other member of the committee moves the proposed amendments that they're discussing in relation to clauses 13, 14 and 15.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, thank you.

That wording is fine.

I want to clarify. Are you suggesting standing clauses 14 and 15?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

That's correct, yes. I suggest standing those clauses, which I understand to mean that we'll come back to them following the amendments Ms. Idlout, Mr. Viersen or any other member seeks to put forward. In other words, it's an opportunity for the committee to continue making progress on areas in which there is agreement or which require our attention independent of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Procedurally, this is in order. We've already stood clause 2, so that will come back at the end, after CPC-10. We will have clause 2, and if this happens, we'll come back to stood clauses 14 and 15 before moving on to the short title and the finishing pieces of it.

We have a motion. I have nobody else on my speaking list, and I'm ready to call the question.

The motion is to stand clauses 14 and 15.

(Clauses 14 and 15 allowed to stand)

Thank you.

We'll now move to clause 16. Does anyone want to speak to clause 16?

Seeing none, I will call the question.

(Clause 16 agreed to on division)

We have no amendments that have been put forward on clause 17.

Does anybody want to speak to clause 17?

Mr. Viersen.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

I was actually up on clause 16.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We've just voted on clause 16 and it did carry.

We'll go to clause 17.

(Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 20)

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Next, we go to clause 20. We have CPC-5.1.

This is Mr. Viersen's amendment.

Mr. Viersen, would you like to move your amendment, CPC-5.1?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the officials something. Clause 20 says “amend the schedule”. I note that the word “add” is not there; it's “amend or remove”. This may be redundant if the word “amend” includes the word “add”.

Could the officials reference that first, before I move my amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll go over to our officials, if anyone can clarify Mr. Viersen's question.

Does “amend“ include “add”?

[Julia Redmond]

Based on my understanding, I don't think this would limit the addition of information here. I note as well that the provision on amending a schedule is very similar, if not identical, to the one in the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement Act from 2022.

Again, we're in the category of very standard provisions in this type of statute, and this is another version of that kind of standard provision.

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

Is that a yes, that “amend” also means “add”?

[Michael Schintz]

I understand “amend” to include the concept of adding to the schedule, yes.