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

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

Then how come it's in this bill?

[Michael Schintz]

My understanding, Mr. Viersen, speaking as the non-lawyer on this panel, is that effectively there's a list of various final agreements that are part of this legislation. The Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act is on that list. This amendment exists purely because that list needs to continue to be maintained as new agreements are added. It's genuinely a very technical detail about there being a list of agreements.

The Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act hasn't come into force; however, it is on that list nonetheless. That's really what this is about.

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

You can understand my interest in this. We're dealing with a Métis bill and now we have a Yale First Nation piece.

[Julia Redmond]

If I may, on the Access to Information Act, if you were to pull up that statute, as I mentioned before, the amendments we were discussing on the prior page covered the list of who's considered an aboriginal government for the purposes of the Access to Information Act. It's for the purposes of sharing information. This is still talking about that same list. We're just talking about who is listed as an aboriginal government for the purposes of that act.

That's why another indigenous government is here. Various ones fall under the heading of aboriginal government. Here we're just dealing with keeping that list in order. That's why you're seeing the name of a different first nation. However, as I said before, this has no bearing on this statute or on any Métis government.

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

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're now going move to new clause 26. This comes about through CPC-6.

Mr. Schmale, this is your amendment. Would you like to move it and speak to it?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the amendment. I think this is more housekeeping than anything.

We're asking that Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 10 the following new clause:

26 If Bill S-13, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 1 of that Act and section 3.1 of this Act are in force, that section 3.1 is repealed.

This is something I believe we all agreed on. It's more of a housekeeping issue than anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Does anybody want to speak to CPC-6?

Seeing no one, shall CPC-6 be adopted?

We'll have a recorded vote on this one. I'll turn it over to our clerk.

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

We won't be doing it on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. We'll have a recorded vote on this one. I'll turn it over to our clerk.

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

No, we're in favour. I said it's not on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, you're in favour. I just assumed we were having a challenge.

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

I was trying to be funny. I clearly failed on that attempt at humour. I apologize. It must be the beard, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

It's affecting the hearing.

(Amendment agreed to)

(On the schedule)

We will now move to CPC-7. Again, this is Mr. Schmale's amendment.

I'll turn the floor over to you, if you would like to move it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will refrain from making any lame jokes.

It asks that Bill C-53, in the schedule, be amended by replacing the portion of item 1 in column 2 on page 11 with the following:

Métis Communities of Alberta that consent to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

My notes say we are not in agreement with this, but I would like to hear from the officials on what their thoughts are. Is this consistent with the legislation? I see some problems in here, but I think it's best for the technicians to explain the issues we have around it.

[Michael Schintz]

Thank you. We're happy to speak to this.

Part of the challenge with this amendment is that it's changing the term the MNA uses to describe itself. Part of the concern here is that the term being proposed to substitute “Métis Nation within Alberta” is inconsistent with the agreement we signed last year. It's inconsistent with the way the Métis Nation of Alberta describes itself in its constitution, which they recently voted on. It was overwhelmingly supported by their people. I would argue as well that it's inconsistent with the United Nations declaration and the right to determine your own identity as an indigenous government and indigenous people.

I think that's the crux of the concern with the proposal.

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

Thank you for that.

After briefly talking to the stakeholders, I know they're not in favour of this either. I want to be sure we're being respectful of the various groups as we move forward with this legislation.

In a spirit of co-development, if we don't have agreement from the MNA on this, we'll have to vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Just before I go to Mr. Schmale, I will mention that if CPC-7 is adopted, NDP-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. However, if CPC-7 is not adopted, we will deal with NDP-5. It's worth looking at the two of them if there are any questions, but we are on CPC-7 right now.

Mr. Schmale, you were next on my speaking list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you look in the schedule, I think it also makes reference to that amendment, basically to the point that.... I'm sorry, but before I get to my next comment, I'll note it also addresses some of the concerns we heard from the individuals from the Métis settlements.

Just for a bit of clarification so that everyone is clear as to.... It's not that everyone needs it, but it just seems, through testimony, that there needs to be a little clarification in the language to ensure that everyone on the opposing side is comfortable and that they don't have any overlap in their jurisdiction. This is something we're going to continue with, especially given that we heard it through testimony.

I'm sorry, but I should also point out, just to build on that, that it's also in the schedule in item number two: “Métis Communities Represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario”. It's right there in the schedule, but not within the Alberta one, which was a concern we heard from the settlements.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

Ms. Idlout, you're next on my list.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a bit confused by your last statement that if we pass CPC‑7, we can't discuss NDP‑5. I think they're both very different topics: CPC‑7 talks about consent and my amendment is not talking about consent. I wonder if you can clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. It's specifically that there would be a line conflict. I think as we've discussed before, we can't go to the same line twice, so whoever gets to it first, deals with it.

In this case, because of the order in which they were received, CPC‑7 would be dealt with first. Therefore, if it's adopted, we'll have already dealt with that line, so yours cannot be done because that's against the rules of how we operate when going through clause-by-clause. If yours had been first, we would have dealt with it first, and then CPC‑7 could have been out of order. It's the way we're going through them, the way they were received. As I said, if this one, CPC‑7, does not get carried, we will go to yours because that line would still be open to negotiate. That's why there's a difference.

You could move a subamendment to CPC‑7 if that would address your concern.

Mr. Viersen, you're next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to highlight the witness testimony of Wendy Goulet on this as well. She represented the Métis of Cadotte. It's not a Métis settlement: They're just a group of Métis who live in the area there and do not want to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta. That is what we're trying to get at. Also, I do believe the Métis of Fort McKay and another group from Lethbridge as well—not Métis settlements—do not want to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta. That's what we we're trying capture with this. There are other Métis communities that are not excited about being represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta, so we need to reference that.

I understand Mr. Battiste's point that the stakeholders he's talked to like this. That's fine, but there are other stakeholders in this country that don't like this, so I think it is incumbent upon us to try to get a Métis collectivity title that represents the reality of the situation. I think we should vote in favour of this one.