Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  To my knowledge, there's no such provision in any other implementing legislation for a treaty or self-government agreement. Mind you, this is a little bit different as implementing legislation goes. Often, there would be a treaty in hand for the committee to look at, at the same

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The very vague answer is that anyone can challenge any legislation at any time; the chances of success are a different question. Implementing legislation for treaties, as I've described before, is usually fairly straightforward. We've seen a lot of these kinds of standard provis

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I would say that gets into my giving legal advice to the committee, which, unfortunately, I am not in a position to do. I would reiterate that this kind of provision would be novel in implementing legislation, and that would be something to consider in moving forward with that.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  This provision, this amendment, would do something a bit different from those non-derogation provisions that the committee has already considered and adopted in the clause-by-clause review so far. This would place a restriction on what could be included in treaties in the future,

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I would just add that this is a very common provision to have in this kind of legislation. You would have seen, for example, that in the Whitecap self-government act, which this committee would have seen a few months ago, the same provision was included. This is very standard for

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I just have a point of clarification here. The reference to “land claims agreement” is in here because it's a reference made in sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution. No meaning is changed by adding that. It's for consistency with the Constitution.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Clause 12 gives legal force, in effect, to supplementary self-government agreements. It is as simple as it sounds. It corresponds to a previous clause in the bill, which deals with giving legal force and effect to treaties.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Are you meaning amendments in advance of the supplementary agreements, or are you meaning this amendment itself, CPC-4?

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Okay. It's setting out the same process that this committee considered in a previous amendment. As opposed to being for the treaties, it's for the supplementary self-government agreements. It's the same process that was set out before. The impact is that the previously contempla

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'm saying here that this sets out a requirement for tabling in Parliament. That requirement is so that the order can come into force. If that requirement isn't met, that could mean that the order in council, which in this case would give force and effect to a supplementary self-

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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 t

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The treaties will supersede the agreements. That's the intention. Given that the bill is addressing the coming into force of those treaties, referencing both an agreement that will be spent once it's replaced as well as the agreement that replaces it would cause confusion down t

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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