Evidence of meeting #92 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I also noticed—actually, it was Gary who just pointed it out—that NDP-5 is very similar to ours that we have on the table now. Given the fact that in many of our conversations “Métis collectivity” was most often used, I am prepared to either do a.... I guess we can't do a friendly amendment, or can we?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Yes, because we're basically saying the same thing. We're using “community”; the NDP is using “collectivity”. “Collectivity” is used quite often in this piece of legislation, so it might be better to stick with that, but I'm open to a conversation about “communities”.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'll go to Ms. Idlout first for comment on Mr. Schmale's comments, then to Mr. Viersen.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Just to clarify, I feel like we're not saying the same things. We're not even saying similar things in our different amendments.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I was still asking for the consent part to be included. I didn't know if that made it more acceptable to you. I think that was what I was getting at. We used “collectivities” instead of “communities”, but it was important to Mr. Viersen when he was talking about consent.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Yes, I understand that you're trying to raise concerns that were raised by other Métis, but I think we have to show our respect to any Métis community. Your amendment talks about consent to be represented. That is quite different from what my amendment says, which is that Métis are collectivities represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta, so there's respect for both. My amendment doesn't talk to consent in the same way that you're trying to in your amendment.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay.
Mr. Viersen, I'll go to you first. I'll put Mr. Schmale on the bottom of my list.
Mr. Viersen, you have the floor.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I hate to disagree with my colleague Mr. Schmale, but I think the word “communities” is probably better than “collectivities”. However, if we are trying to make a compromise, perhaps we should drop the words “collectivities” and “communities” altogether and just say “the Métis of Alberta who consent to being represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta”. That captures both communities and individuals, which I think would be helpful.
I just want to reinforce as well that the Métis Nation of Alberta is the Métis communities represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta. It would be more consistent if we went with direct language on that, but there is a thing we're trying to capture here that I think, if this committee does its job right, we will capture.
I'm not exactly sure on the wording. Perhaps, because we were trying to mesh ours and the NDP one together...and you get the same as the Métis communities represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario. If we went with the same thing for Alberta, I think we would be getting in that direction.
I'd love to hear my colleagues thoughts on that.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'll go to our officials first for a comment, because you had something there that sounded kind of like a subamendment, a possibility. The officials look like they're ready to comment. I'll go to them first, and then I have a speaking list.
11:30 a.m.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I just want to make a comment for our Métis partners, because I know this is very problematic for them. We've given testimony previously, and I think it's important to reiterate that. No community that does not want to be represented by these governments is going to be forced to be represented by these governments, regardless of what words are chosen here in these amendments. That's not what this bill does. It does not impose a governance regime on anyone who does not consent to be represented.
I think it's important to pause for a moment. This bill does two things. It recognizes three governments that for far too long have not been recognized, and the discussion being had right now is to determine for these governments how to define themselves. That's very problematic for them.
I, of course, listened to the testimony from Cadotte Lake and Fort McKay as well. I think one way to look at this is that it's almost as if you were to tell Cadotte Lake that they are going to be called something different. They're going to be called the Métis Nation within Alberta all of a sudden. It's really problematic for these governments.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We'll continue with the speaking list.
Mr. Lemire, you're next.
11:30 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
My remarks are on the language used in the preamble, but it’s also part of the rest of the bill.
There is indeed a difference between the words “collectivity” and “community”. In the French version, the preferred term should be “community”. Obviously, I will not go out on a limb to say what would be the better term in English. However, in the French version of the bill, it would be preferable to write the word “community” each time.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
Mr. Schmale, I have you on the list next if you'd like to weigh in.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I was trying to make a case to maybe simplify this. Obviously that did not work very well. It probably messed things up a little more than what I had originally intended.
I am fine with keeping “communities”, keeping it the way it's written. However, with regard to Mr. Viersen's point, if we clean up some of the language—I'm looking to the government—is there anything in this that would be...?
No. Okay, there's nothing.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Next on my list I have Mr. Battiste, and then I have Ms. Idlout and Mr. Viersen.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I hear what people are saying about.... I hear the concerns. We've heard testimony from different people saying that they don't want to be lumped in with this. As we've heard from our technicians, nothing in this legislation or this schedule is making someone who doesn't want to be represented be represented by these groups.
However, what this legislation intends to do with self-government is allow these people in this schedule to determine for themselves who they are, how their governance structure works and how they can ratify it moving forward. For us as a committee to get in front of them and say that we know best for them—how to define themselves, how to govern themselves.... That's not what this legislation is. This legislation is meant to give them the ability to determine that, so any discussion on this committee about making amendments to the schedule is basically a very paternal look and is saying that we know better than they do in how to define them.
I know that's not the intention of the committee. However, when we get to the schedule, this is what the stakeholders are very much telling us and this is what our technicians are telling us. It's not for us to get in front of this legislation and determine for them how they define themselves.
We're going to have to vote against anything that amends that schedule or takes the approach that we as a committee know better than the organizations about the work they have to do after this legislation is introduced. We just can't get in front of the important work they have to do on this and say that we know better than they do about who they represent, how they represent them and the work that needs to be done to ratify this to ensure that these treaties....
This is the next step on these treaties, and we're trying to get ahead of that, so as the government we can't support anything that paternally tells them how we think they should be defined.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
I feel compelled to respond to what Michael said.
How amazing it is that the Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Ontario and Métis Nation–Saskatchewan have such weight on your shoulders. I would love to see the same weight given to first nations that have suffered boil water advisories for decades, to first nations that have been known to have mercury poisoning and to the need for treatment to the same extent. That's just responding to what you said, speaking on behalf of the Métis.
I want to get back to my point about the difference between CPC-7 and NDP-5. I think the difference between CPC-7 and NDP-5 is that with CPC-7.... I am most likely going to oppose it because of what we heard from these three Métis corporations, which is that they have vigorous citizenship and registration. I believe in that. I believe what they have told us in testimony, which is that they have tightened up their language about citizenship and that we don't need to add language about Métis communities in Alberta that consent to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta.
The difference I see in my amendment is that it clarifies that the Métis Nation of Alberta does not represent Métis collectives in Alberta. I think that's a huge differentiation that we need to acknowledge because, as you said earlier, the Metis Settlements General Council, for example, already has the tax treatment. They are already recognized as a government.
That's why I see my amendment addressing the concerns about the Métis Nation of Alberta not becoming an overall encompassing nation that governs all of Métis in Alberta. It recognizes that there is a collective in Alberta called, for example, the Metis Settlements General Council.
I wonder if you could confirm what the difference is between CPC-7 and NDP-5, with your technical expertise.
Qujannamiik.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We'll turn to our officials for a response to Ms. Idlout's question and then I'll carry on with my speaking list, with Mr. Viersen next.
11:30 a.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
One thing to note off the bat is that neither formulation in front of us right now—neither NDP-5 nor CPC-7—is what appears in the agreement signed in February 2023 between Canada and each of these Métis governments.
That's something to consider when looking at these amendments, because aside from the importance of self-determination to these Métis governments, I think there is also a matter of clarity to be found in having consistency between what appears in the bill and what appears in those agreements, despite the fact that this bill doesn't give legal force and effect to those agreements. However, there is value in having that be consistent to ensure that those agreements fit into the overall structure of what's happening here. Neither “communities” nor “collectivities” appears in those agreements.
Again, I would leave it to each of these Métis governments to speak to how they might see any difference in those. I don't know that it's my role to do that for the committee today.