Senator Dupuis: When the minister appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I told him that it seemed like he was covering two completely different things in this bill. The very structure of the bill was intended to respond to crimes during which police officers die. There were consultations with the premiers, interventions and a consensus on this part of the bill. Then a clause having to do with intimate partner violence suddenly appeared in the bill. I asked him whether that issue had been raised during the consultation. He told me that they had taken something from a bill introduced by a senator and included it in this bill.

When the officials came back to the committee, I asked them the same question and asked whether there had been a consultation on this part of the bill that has nothing to do with the crux of the bill, since it is on the issue of intimate partner violence. The officials told us that they could not say because the minister’s office had dealt with that.

Do you recall hearing that?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Thank you for your speech, Senator Martin.

We know that, since the early 1970s, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been representing First Nations people who live off-reserve. We also know that one of the most important aspects of the work done by the Assembly of First Nations has been recognizing the jurisdiction of First Nations governments, not only over their members living on-reserve, but also over their members who move off-reserve.

Isn’t there a risk of double representation if the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is added?

When you were doing your research, did you find any information on this subject?

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, I’ve learned that, in the Senate, it’s in vogue to say at this point, “I wasn’t planning to speak to this topic today.”

Here’s what I’d like to say, with reference to the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2016 decision in Daniels v. Canada. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples asked three questions. First, should they be recognized as Indians? The answer was yes. Second and third, did they have the right to be consulted and should they automatically be part of negotiations? The answer was no.

This is an extremely complex issue both politically and legally. I cannot imagine the Senate, on the basis of an amendment like this one, deciding to take a stance one way or the other. I must therefore vote against the amendment.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Clement take another question?