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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
All right. I'm sorry, but I cannot join you for dinner. I am catching an airplane this evening.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
They're coming. They're descending. I'm being surrounded by hungry people. I'm sorry.
4:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
It sounds as though you now have dinner plans.
Nonetheless, this Métis government is not a federal board, commission or tribunal. Presumably, though, a Métis government could set up tribunals and a justice system. The function of government is the function of judgments.
December 14th, 2023 / 4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
That's entirely separate from what this provision is dealing with. This is a very standard provision that clarifies which court would handle disputes related to these bodies. This doesn't speak to jurisdictions about setting up a court or an administration of justice—not at all. It's a very standard provision for this type of statute.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
What are we telling the world when we write this here?
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Essentially, it would be getting at how, if there were court disputes related to this, then those would not necessarily, or by default, be assumed to go to the federal courts as opposed to a provincial court, for example. It's really just a technical matter relating to potential disputes around this, but not to the internal matters of a Métis government.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
You're going to have to explain this a little better for me, because the way I read it is that it basically says that if there is a dispute, you have to take it to a federal court, not to a Métis government.
That's how I read it when I read it originally. It's basically saying that if I have a dispute with a Métis government in Canada, I take that to a Canadian court; I don't take it to the Métis government. If I have a dispute with a collective that's governing here in Canada, I don't take that dispute to the Métis government; I take it to a federal court.
Am I way out to lunch here?
4:45 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I think this deals with a much narrower point than I think you may have in mind.
I don't have the Federal Courts Act in front of me right now, but it deals with this list in subsection 2(1), on institutions that are federal boards, commissions or other tribunals. Decisions of those federal boards, commissions or other tribunals are reviewable by the Federal Court.
4:45 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
This is essentially saying that the Métis government is not in that category, implying that decisions of a Métis government would not be reviewable by the Federal Court. That's all it's saying.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
With no one else on my speaking list, I'll call the question on clause 10.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll move now to new clause 10.1. This arises from CPC-4, which is Mr. Schmale's amendment.
Mr. Schmale, would you like to move this amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Yes, I would, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to do so.
I'm going to quickly speak to that, if I could. Basically, I think this was something that was raised throughout the testimony we heard. It basically ensures that this committee has the opportunity to have oversight on any supplementary agreement that may or may not happen with the self-government agreements.
I think it's important, as we've seen through the process, to have this process work and talk through it, and thankfully we have. We were able to hopefully improve this bill.
I think, for the most part, this gives us the opportunity to provide any recommendations on anything new that might come forward and hopefully have the same collaboration that we've had on this bill.
If Ms. Gainey needs to look after other people, I'm happy to suspend for a bit.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
That's an example of Conservatives working across party lines.
I'm done, Mr. Chair.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
This, again, is one of those motions that we've been putting in to try to ensure the supremacy of Parliament.
Once again, I want to point out that I think the government has failed with this piece of legislation, in that it came as a surprise to a number of people. We heard from a whole host of witnesses who were concerned about the impacts of this piece of legislation, and I think that there may have been more support for the bill if it had been split up into the individual provinces.
It will be interesting to see how the Manitoba Métis Federation fits into all of this as well. It's interesting to me that Manitoba is left out of this piece of legislation, so it kind of proves the point that we could have had....They got their own deal.
That is the challenge, for sure, around making sure that this stuff gets tabled in Parliament. The point is that we should have a national conversation about these things rather than a negotiation that nobody knows is going on until the legislation is dropped in Parliament.
That's what this bill is having us do in having this agreement brought to this committee. Maybe we're thinking we're a little too self-important on that, but I think that this committee is capable of handling that, and I think that would be good.
Again, we are referencing the Constitution here as well. I think it's a great amendment, and it looks like Mr. Battiste agrees with me for a change.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
If I could just ask the officials what the impacts of the amendment could mean, because while I agree that it can't just be the Governor in Council, this amendment seems to add lots of other things. I wonder if you could describe what the impacts of these amendments will be if they are passed.
4:50 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Are you meaning amendments in advance of the supplementary agreements, or are you meaning this amendment itself, CPC-4?
