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

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry that this is a totally different question. I'm going to go back to something that I think Ms. Redmond said. I am a bit of a process nerd. You tweaked a question and I just want to understand.

You said that these agreements are the precursor to the treaties that are given force through this legislation. The legislation is giving force to the treaty, which the agreements are a precursor to.

My question is really simple. What happens to the agreements once a treaty is passed? Do they then become just historical documents that go away? I am trying to figure out how the dots all connect here. It's a bit of a process nerd question, honestly.

[Julia Redmond]

It's a very fair question.

The intention is that the treaties will supersede the agreements, so essentially they replace them.

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

The legislation, in fact, gives force to the treaty, so it doesn't have to come back for approval.

[Julia Redmond]

That's right.

[Michael Schintz]

That's except for the amendments made by the committee that require the treaties to be—

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

Fair enough. The amendments actually do require it to come back, but the way it was originally presented, the legislation would give force to the treaty, which the agreement is a precursor to, without it having to come back to be approved by Parliament or any other process. In essence, the legislation does give force to the agreements in an indirect manner.

Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out the flow. Now we have that option where it's still going to have to come back. That's the change. Am I understanding that appropriately?

[Julia Redmond]

You're correct that the treaties, pursuant to the amendments that have been made by this committee, would need to be tabled with Parliament prior to their coming into force.

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

I'm just trying to go around all this in circles.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Next I have Monsieur Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since there’s five minutes left in the meeting, I just want to seize the opportunity and table the motion I sent to the clerk so that it can pass.

I was quite surprised by the speediness of the response sent to us before the committee’s meeting, and I want to highlight that.

You’ll understand that the second part of this motion can be deleted, but I will still read out the first part:

That the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs call upon the Government of Canada (1) to clarify how the Crown intends to conduct future negotiations with the Métis of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the inherent rights of section 5 of the Constitution Act of Canada, and to confirm that no overlap will be created as a result of such treaties on First Nations territories without having their free, prior and informed consent on these issues and on the territories of Quebec;

During a previous meeting of this committee, Mr. Justin Roy, councillor of the Kebaowek First Nation, talked about the lack of true recognition of title and rights. In response to one of the questions posed by my colleague, Marilène Gill, he said:

If this bill were to go through, it would have large impacts on our unceded Algonquin territory, only because we have been the rights and title holders of these lands since time immemorial.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue that merits clarification. I think my role as a legislator also means acting as an intermediary to communicate the needs of my community.

I’m ready to take a step to facilitate voting on Bill C‑53 and passing it, but I have to provide clarification to the first nations in my community in order to get their support.

For example, it must be specified in writing that Bill C‑53 does not apply to Quebec’s territories, because that is at the heart of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation. Mr. Roy testified to convey that.

In the case of the Chalk River site and consultations held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, tabling the bill took four or five years because Indigenous peoples had to be consulted. Obviously, it was too late by then, and the Commission recommended that the project go forward. There was an impact on their ancestral lands and it could have an impact on the very safety of all citizens.

In my opinion, situations that potentially involve an overlap between territories do indeed require this kind of clarification. They are part of the determining factors to review before supporting or rejecting Bill C‑53.

Currently, the chiefs of first nations communities back home, who are Algonquin, are asking me to oppose this bill.

I therefore suggest you support the motion you received by email. Obviously, when it comes to the second part of it, thank you once again for the answer you provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

I thank Sébastien for his motion and his sharing with me previously. I think we've gotten some answers. I'm wondering if we can't table it at the next meeting so we can refine and amend what we've already provided to you, and then have a conversation about the substance of the first part of it for the next meeting. It doesn't appear like we're going to make any progress that draws the Bill C-53 clause-by-clause to a debate.

I'm wondering if it's okay to discuss this at the next meeting, as time is running short. It would be nice to get to one vote before we close tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

What interests me is knowing the content of the proposals. As I said, I have preliminary work as an intermediary to do, which is to address the communities and have them approve or disapprove what’s being proposed. However, I don’t currently have the tools I need to say whether or not I support the government’s bill.

I therefore hope to have that part of the conversation with them, but to do so, I need you. I therefore extend my hand, regardless of the way we find to do get it done.

I think my motion is a good way to clarify what I want so that we can talk about overlapping issues and Quebec’s issues. That being said, it could be done another way.

Mr. Battiste, I accept your proposal. Otherwise, I’ll come back to it. However, if we want to pass anything today, I need those elements.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With the motion we have, what I'm looking for is whether we can get unanimous consent to bring it back at our next meeting and have the discussion then, so we'll essentially be adjourning debate for today. We'll have more information and bring it back when we come back.

Colleagues, I know people are talking about how we're out of time. Technically, we have two hours of resources. I was hoping to at least get through the schedule today. I know there are lots of discussions. We want to make sure that we have plenty of time for discussion.

At this point, I have no more speakers on NDP-5. I'm wondering if we're willing to move that. I'll even be so bold as to ask this: Are we going to have the same level of discussion for the remaining amendments on the schedule, or do we think we can move through those in the somewhat reasonable amount of time we have and still get out earlier than the resources we have beyond 6:30?

I'm looking to the will of the committee. Before we do that, I will say, not having anybody else on my speaking list, that I will call the vote on NDP-5 so we can at least conclude that. Then I'll see what the will of the committee is, and we can perhaps dispense with some others: CPC-8, CPC-9, and CPC-10.

Let's do the vote first on NDP-5. Do we want a recorded vote on this?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll turn it over to the clerk for a recorded vote.

[The Clerk, Mr. Cédric Taquet]

It's five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

This is a situation we haven't come up against and seen since I've taken over the chair. I've turned to our clerks and have been given some direction. The book says it very clearly and tells me what to as the chair. Just for reference, it indicates:

...in casting a vote on a clause of a bill, the Chair would vote in the affirmative and on an amendment or subamendment, the Chair would vote in the negative in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment....

That's the direction from the book on an amendment to vote in the negative. Therefore, I cast my vote in the negative.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

At this point in time, would the committee be willing to...? How much discussion do we think we need on CPC-8 and CPC-9? On CPC-10, there is a bit of an issue related to CPC-8 and CPC-9. There's an issue with CPC-10 we can deal with that could create some inconsistencies in terminology, but the main discussion right now would be on CPC-8 and CPC-9.

I'm turning to the committee about timing. Do we have agreement to try to get through this discussion, or do we think we're going to need a lot more time to have the discussion on CPC-8 and CPC-9?

Mr. Battiste, I'll go to you first.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we've had significant discussion and debate on the schedule, which really is just on how the stakeholders define themselves and whether we should be defining how they define themselves within the terms of their title. I think a lot has been done substantively.

I'm asking for us to proceed with the next three votes on the schedule on division, and then we can pick up at the next meeting our discussion on the preamble and the motion by Mr. Lemire.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Mr. Schmale.

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

Mr. Chair, unfortunately I have House duty, so I can't stay too much later. I don't know what the Bloc and NDP are thinking on that.

If we want to have a vote on CPC-8 and CPC-9, we're fine to go to that now. As you said, CPC-10 might be a little contentious, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

It's not so much that it's contentious. It depends on the results of CPC-8 and CPC-9. I can explain that in a minute, depending on where those go.

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

Do you want to do a quick vote on CPC-8 and CPC-9?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. Then I can explain CPC-10 and see if we can get you back to the House.