Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

We're going to remain on this one and talk about “collectivities” and “peoples”, just to keep on tap what we're meaning, because it could have.... I don't know what kinds of impacts there will be if we're not consistent. I'm quite concerned about how that could create confusion, especially given that, for example, we were told by the Metis Settlements General Council about their concerns with the Métis Nation of Alberta and how this impact could mean that membership might change from the Métis settlements to the Métis Nation of Alberta because of this enabling legislation. I'm trying to think of the reality of what's going to happen to the Alberta Métis and what's going to happen with each of their memberships, based on what happens on Bill C-53.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Please continue. Get the clarification that you need, but just as a general reminder, as much as possible focus on what we're at. The floor is yours, so please carry on, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I was asking about making sure that when we do talk about collectivities and peoples, whatever the impact of that interpretation is going to be needs to be made clear to us so that when we go back to our constituents or people we've been consulting with, if indeed there is a potential for rights to be infringed, the duty to consult is going to be triggered right away. At this point that trigger has not been reached. It is my understanding that this is why there's not been that duty to consult for those other groups.

[Michael Schintz]

It's correct that it is our position that in the agreements that were signed in February of this year, insofar as they are contracts that are binding on the signatory parties, the contracts did not trigger the duty to consult. Similarly, with regard to the treaties referred to in this legislation, we will have a requirement to consult on the treaties.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, you're next on my list, followed by Mr. Vidal.

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

To go back a bit to Mr. Carr's comments, the challenge in this bill that I'm trying to get at with my amendment—and we may need to amend it—is around competing Métis identification, the point being whether a Métis person can be a member of both the MNA and Peavine Métis Settlement or of both the MNA and the Métis of Cadotte. That was their concern: Were there going to be competing Métis memberships? Will the MNA be competing for their members?

I'm not even necessarily certain that my.... When I quoted and I sent that in, I was saying that we want to make sure we're not setting up competing memberships. What would happen if somebody were a member of both? What does that look like? Maybe we can ask our officials about that as well. If a Métis person were a member of the Peavine Métis Settlement and a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta, there were some concerns around these competitions. I imagine that there wouldn't necessarily be a challenge for that, but there's nothing in this bill that prevents that from being a thing.

[Michael Schintz]

Under the agreement signed in February of this year with MNO, MNA and MN-S, it is explicit that while it is the right of a Métis individual to choose their government—as long as they meet the eligibility criteria and so on and so forth, they're able to choose which government represents them—there's a requirement that there be no dual citizenship. Those individuals need to choose one government. They're not able to choose both the MNA and Cadotte, as an example.

However, the one exception is the Métis settlements. There's a provision in the MNA agreement signed in February of this year that provides for dual citizenship to the Métis settlements and the MNA. The reason is that this is the status quo today. It was part of the decision of the government to maintain that status quo and to do so explicitly.

I can't recall whether or not it was raised directly by President Lamouche as part of the testimony, but I want to be clear: We do understand that the Métis settlements have raised some concerns about that approach. For that reason, it'll be something we need to revisit in the text as part of finalizing a treaty.

Again, we have a constitutional obligation to ensure we're not adversely impacting the rights of other governments that are not signatories to those future self-government treaties.

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

You can see where the communities would be concerned about a—I hate to use this term—poaching of members, essentially. These other communities have existed for a long time, and now suddenly there's a new treaty, a new agreement and a desire to switch allegiances, essentially.

Can we protect against that in this amendment?

[Michael Schintz]

I understand the non-derogation proposals to be protecting the rights of other collectivities. I believe and I would submit that the agreements, the legislation and the future core governance treaties are all enshrining as a principle the right of Métis individuals to choose who properly represents them, so long as they meet the.... I don't want to belabour the point.

It is our position that the right of these individuals to choose their governments is protected within those parameters. Beyond that, I don't have much to offer, Mr. Viersen.

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

Getting back to this, how do we...?

Your comments don't clarify for me whether we should be using “Métis peoples” or “Métis collectives”. That's the crux of whether we go with NDP-4.1 or this one.

You use them somewhat interchangeably, but they come at it from the opposite end of the problem, essentially, which still doesn't solve my problem.

[Julia Redmond]

If I understand correctly, your intention seems to be to have one refer to individuals and the other referring to groups, at least as they're drafted. The references to “Métis peoples” and “Métis collectivities” can be read in very similar ways, as both referring to groups.

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

That was not my intention with this amendment. How would we improve it? Would “self-determination of Métis individuals” be a better term to use?

You're not going to commit to that one, right?

[Julia Redmond]

It's not for me to draft for the committee.

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

I look to Jaime a little bit on this.

If we amended mine to “Métis individuals” would that...? I don't think we capture the same things between the two.

I'd be open to a friendly amendment that would say “self-determination of Métis individuals”.

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

You're getting there. Ask more questions. You'll get there.

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

What's that?

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

I said to ask some more questions. You're getting there. You're almost there.

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

Well, I want you to support my amendment.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I don't think they're the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to jump in here for a second.

Just to be clear on procedure, you're not allowed to amend your own amendment. You can't offer a subamendment.

Colleagues, what I'm going to do is—

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

That's why I was asking for a friendly amendment from—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to suggest that we actually pause for three minutes so that each side....

We've had some really good discussion here, but I think it may be worthwhile for each group to reflect on where they want to go with this.

I'll come back with the same speaking order. I have Mr. Viersen, Mr. Vidal and Mr. McLeod on the list, but I'm going to suggest that—

First we'll go to our witness, to Mr. Schintz.

[Michael Schintz]

I just want to offer this point before the further contemplation of this during the break.

We don't typically refer to self-determination on an individual level. We don't tend to refer to the right of individuals to self-determination as part of implementing bills. It's a collective right.