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

[Julia Redmond, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

We're receiving this as recently as you are, so we're giving you our preliminary thoughts.

Including the phrase “for the purposes of this act”, as has been suggested in this amendment, could in some ways be interpreted as a narrower version of the recognition than is set out otherwise. That's one possible interpretation of including that phrase. Clause 8 would still clearly set out the idea that a Métis government is authorized to act on behalf of a Métis collectivity. That remains true even with that phrase in there.

That is the one additional impact that might be worth considering at this point. That could have a potential narrowing effect, but the rest of the clause still remains.

I don't know if my colleagues have anything else to add.

[Michael Schintz, Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Having been one of the officials responsible for co-developing the text of this bill, I understand it to undermine some of the interests of our partners. I know for certain that they have an interest in being able to point to language recognizing that they're an indigenous governing body for the purposes of certain acts where they understand themselves to meet that test, an example being the child and family services legislation.

In a sense, this leads to an enduring uphill battle for our partners to make the point that they are indigenous governments that have been mandated and authorized to represent section 35 rights holders in instances and in the context of legislation where they should rightfully be respectfully dealt with as such.

I agree with Ms. Redmond's comments. I think it may well achieve some of the aims of the committee. I don't mean to speak to whether it does achieve the objectives of the committee, but I do think that, were our partners here today giving testimony in front of you, that's likely what you would hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We have Mr. Battiste, and then Mr. Viersen and Ms. Idlout.

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

I'll defer to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen.

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

You mentioned the child and families portion of this. Is there any other legislation that might be affected by this? As soon as we put in “for the purposes of this act”, I recognize that we narrow it significantly. That was not an anticipated impact.

Is there anything else, any other pieces that you can point to that would be another example?

[Michael Schintz]

I referenced child and family services legislation, as it's specifically dealt with in the three agreements that were signed in February of this year. That was developed in collaboration with our colleagues at Indigenous Services Canada. It explicitly recognizes that, for the purposes of the child and family services legislation, these governments are indigenous governing bodies and they meet the threshold for that.

We purposely did not put in a generic provision suggesting that, for the purposes of any and all legislation.... Not to get into hypotheticals, but it's the simplest way to answer your question, Mr. Viersen. In the event of legislation dealing with Atlantic fisheries that used the term, I would think the terms of that legislation would not fit this context.

I understand that there is a balance the committee is intending to strike. I just want to make sure that the implications of the text are understood, as best as I can provide context, but our counsel's views are more important than my own.

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

Ms. Redmond.

[Julia Redmond]

The clarification I would add here is that this doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on Bill C-92 as a piece of legislation. It also doesn't prevent any of the Métis governments addressed by this bill from meeting that test, that definition of “Indigenous governing body” for the purposes of that act. It's still possible that they would meet that test, but it would have to be shown.

One reading of what's in clause 8 is that this could still be shown from what is spelled out here. However, without that phrase in there, “for the purposes of this act”, it's not as automatic as it might be.

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

I'm very familiar with Bill C-92. I was on this committee when that passed.

Are there other areas where “Indigenous governing body” is recognized by Canadian law that would suddenly be impacted by this?

I see now that that's what this is doing, and this would narrow it significantly. What would be the ramifications of that?

[Julia Redmond]

I don't have any other examples to give you off the top of my head, examples of other legislation that uses that term. In the sense of any bill that uses that defined term, a Métis government would have to show that it meets that test, if it wants to meet that requirement in that act.

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

All right.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Idlout, we'll go over to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

My intention was not to narrow the scope. This is the problem with the limited time that we've had. We ended up with this very much at the last minute, a few minutes ago, when we were able to submit.

When I was talking with the lawyer, I was saying what Gary's concerns were. When you look at “Indigenous governing body” and the way it is generalized to be interpreted by other pieces of legislation, or other legislation using the term “Indigenous governing body”.... I was trying to make sure that it is clear, because we're talking about Métis self-governing bodies, that it applies to them.

I don't know what the fix could be. I don't know if, maybe, we should suspend again so that I can get more accurate instructions about what I was meaning to do. If they are telling us...that's not what my intent was. However, because we had such a short amount of time to make a submission.... When it's explained in that way, that's not what my intent was.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Are you requesting to suspend? If so, we'll have to have a vote.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I am requesting to suspend for a few minutes again so that I can get a better-worded amendment to submit.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll take that to the members to see if there is support.

Are we good to suspend?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

How long do you feel you need, Ms. Idlout?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I need 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, we will suspend until 5:20.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're now back in our meeting.

I understand there has been a lot of discussion among the parties.

We had left off at Ms. Idlout's amendment, reference number 12805860. I understand that Ms. Idlout wants to withdraw that. We can do that through unanimous consent.

Do we have agreement for Ms. Idlout to withdraw 12805860?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

(Amendment withdrawn)

That one is now withdrawn. We have amazing co-operation happening here.

I understand there is a question on process. There's been an additional amendment submitted by Ms. Idlout. If that's not being put forward, then we will go to Mr. Vidal's, which has reference number 12796449.

Ms. Idlout, are you willing to go to Mr. Vidal's?

Okay, Mr. Vidal, I would ask if you'd like to move that amendment.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I would, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

It's been an interesting discussion. Yesterday, in response to my colleague Mr. Battiste about the collaboration of this committee.... I'd like to actually comment on that.

Over the last few days, as Ms. Idlout said, there's been a tremendous amount of emailing, conversations, and meeting in back rooms and whatever, trying to figure out a way forward on this. Maybe we didn't come to one that we all agreed on, but we have a number of ideas that we think will help solve some of the challenges and address some of the concerns that we've heard from people, both in the testimony that we heard at the table and in the hundreds of written submissions that we received from many people across the country.

Over the course of the hearings on this piece of legislation, I have continually commented on how critical it is that we try to get this right. I've consistently commented on the fact that how we do this is really important in finding our way forward in our relationship with Métis people across the country. It has been my sincere desire—and I know it was that of Ms. Idlout, Ms. Gill and different team members—to try to get there.

I do want to move this amendment. I do want to have some discussion around it. I know it's not perfect, and I know it may not be popular with everybody, but I think it really does address many of the concerns that we heard.

Mr. Chair, do I need to read this whole thing, or can I just move it?