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.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I absolutely would like to invite the officials to answer the question first, but I really would encourage my colleagues and I would really like to hear from them as well.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
In response to the text you've proposed, on an initial reading of it, a reference to “citizens” doesn't change the meaning of this recognition provision. It's still set out that the Métis government represents a Métis collectivity, those being set out in the schedule. As long as it's clear in the text that a collectivity is more than just the citizens themselves—it's something as a whole, and it's the holder of collective rights—I think it would be legally accurate.
On my reading, this reference to including its citizens doesn't change the meaning of the provision as it was drafted before.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thanks.
I was waiting to see if anybody else at your table wanted to comment. That's why I was looking like a deer in the headlights. I'm sorry.
Is there nobody else?
Chair, is there a speaking list?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hearing no opposition from our officials, and hearing support from our stakeholders for this amendment, I would like to say that we are confident that after 24 hours we've arrived at a very amicable way of moving forward. I think this is something we'll be able to support. I think it's an important thing.
I would like to thank the stakeholders for their diligent work over the last 24 hours, and the members of this committee, to ensure that we got to a place where they were happy with it.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
I was getting worried that you were going to make a motion or something. I was like, “I have a question.”
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Could you interpret for us what Gary's amendment does, when you read it? Can you explain to us how this now reads? Pretend you didn't see the original clause 8. Read clause 8 with Gary's amendment and explain it to us.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I will say that the text that's here, on reading it, I think could be considered redundant. It's true already that a collectivity is composed of citizens, and by representing a collectivity, a government represents the citizens of that collectivity as well. For it to say “collectivity, including its citizens” would be a true statement. It wouldn't be necessary to say, but it also wouldn't change the meaning that's there already.
Again, to repeat myself from before, I think the meaning of this provision—that a Métis government represents the Métis collectivity—remains the same.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I do understand that the proposed amendments are intended to add further clarity that when we're referring to the collectivity, that collectivity certainly includes those who have chosen to become citizens of that collectivity. When we're referring to the term “Indigenous governing body”, there has been a great deal of discussion around that term.
I don't have much to add beyond what Ms. Redmond said. I think the intention has really added clarity.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.
The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.
I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.
Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Do you mean in terms of this proposed definition?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
On my read of this, the version that's here is consistent with what appears in other statutes. I don't have in front of me all the statutes you referenced, of course, in order to compare right now, but this text appears to be the standard text that would be used to refer to, again, that broad list of potential indigenous governing bodies.
As I said previously to the committee, this is broader than it might need to be to refer to who's covered by this bill. We're only talking about Métis governments. This sets out a broader list of who might be considered an indigenous governing body. Some of those are just not going to be relevant here, but that doesn't necessarily affect anything else about the operation of the bill. It's just broader than it might need to be.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Okay.
When we read the original clause 8 and what I guess will be subclause 8(2), is that where you're seeing the redundancy?
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
In subclause 8(2) in this amendment, which I have in front of me, there's a definition for “Indigenous governing body”. That definition sets out that it “means a council, government or other entity”. Here, we're only talking about Métis governments. We're not talking about a council and we're not talking about another entity.
Again, referencing things that are not relevant doesn't necessarily change anything. It's just not needed for the function of that definition.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I have no others on my speaking list at this time.
Are we ready to call the vote on amendment 12808783?
Can we do a recorded vote, please?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Well done.
We're going to now move on to NDP-4.1.
I'll ask whether the member would like to move NDP-4.1.