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

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll go to Mr. Viersen to see if there is.

It's your time to get clarification or some new content, so I'm going back to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't get an answer to my question. The question is, is there not room...? Mr. Battiste is saying that we shouldn't amend the schedule because that is how “the stakeholders”, in his words, want it to be written. I am saying there is a Métis government listed in column 1, “Métis Nation of Alberta”, and then the collectivity that it has in column 2 is “Métis Nation within Alberta”. That's a kind of circular logic right there.

Maybe we're pursuing it—from both Ms. Idlout and Mr. Schmale—in the wrong column. Maybe we're supposed to be pursuing it in a.... I don't know. This is right, but could we not broaden it? I think Ms. Idlout's amendment broadens the collectivity.

Perhaps where we're mistaken—and Mr. Schintz could point this out to us—is that there has to be an addition. This goes back to a previous amendment I had for putting in the word “add”. Can there be additions to column 2 without additions to column 1? Does that makes sense, Mr. Schintz?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll turn to our officials to see if they're able to provide a comment on that question.

[Michael Schintz]

Mr. Battiste has spoken to the conversations he's had with the Métis governments about the schedule of the bill, so I don't know that I need to speak to that at the moment. However, I would like to point to an amendment that was accepted by this committee previously, which was a non-derogation provision specifically to set out Métis collectivities that have not authorized these Métis governments to represent them:

...nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the right to self-determination....

While I'm certainly happy to be corrected, Mr. Viersen, I understand that as trying to get at the same issue, and it is an amendment that was accepted by this committee.

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

I still don't.... The point we're trying to make is that there are other collectivities or other governments in Alberta that aren't the Métis Nation of Alberta, and they could be represented—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, once again it's repetition. It's the same question, same comments.

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

The floor is mine now.

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

It's been five days. I can raise a point of order about repetition, and this seems to be repetition.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I would say, Mr. Viersen, that yes, we've been around this one. If you have new content to bring in to further the discussion, that's great, but try to take us to a new point that we haven't discussed before.

We've had your concerns answered now in a few places on this. I'll leave the floor with you and just ask you to try to get some new information in here, new perspectives. We need to keep this moving and not just redebate the same points.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

We've been going around this for a while. Mr. Battiste is saying that just because “the stakeholders”, in his opinion and in his words, don't want this amendment, we shouldn't support this amendment, but I'm saying that's not a reason. That's someone's opinion, but that's not a reason to not support this amendment. I'm prepared to support this amendment, and I would like some acknowledgement from Mr. Battiste that this is a fair amendment. Whether or not he's going to vote for it, it is a thing that we can do.

I don't want to end up in a place where the schedule, as we pass it, becomes a logical error. That is what I'm trying to get at with my questions. Will we end up in a logical error if we pass Ms. Idlout's, or previously Mr. Schmale's, amendment? That has nothing to do with whether the stakeholders like the amendment or don't like the amendment.

You can say we've been going around this. I am trying to get at the logic of the situation, not people's opinion on it. That's my question to the officials: Will we end up in a logical error if we pass Ms. Idlout's amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Viersen.

We'll go to the officials for a comment on that question.

[Julia Redmond]

As we've said before, the terms that appear in column 2 right now are those that also appear in the related self-government agreements signed between Canada and each of these Métis governments in February 2023. There is logic to having consistency between those February 2023 agreements and the terms they use for these collectivities and that appear in column 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for responding to that question.

I'll go to Mr. Schmale, who is next on my list.

Mr. Viersen, if you have a follow-up, then use the “raise hand” function and I'll get you back on the list.

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

To clarify and probably build on what Mr. Viersen was saying, there would be no harm done other than potentially upsetting some of the stakeholders if we pass this motion. There would be no massive negative result other than people potentially not liking it.

[Julia Redmond]

One possible consequence or potential impact of changing the terms as they appear right now in column 2, as I said before, is that there would be an inconsistency between these terms and the equivalent terms to describe each collectivity in the agreements that Canada signed with each of the governments—the MNA, MN-S, and MNO—in February 2023. We'd be left with a situation where there are two different terms worded somewhat differently, slightly differently or very differently, depending on the amendments.

If there were some kind of challenge to how these might be interpreted, having two different ways of describing the same collectivity could create some confusion.

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

Okay.

Do I still have the floor?

[Michael Schintz]

I just want to add one thought, and I've made a similar comment previously.

I also understand that it would be inconsistent with the terminology used in a constitution recently overwhelmingly passed by 65,000 citizens of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

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

Do I still have the floor? Do I ask one question and then come back?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Usually we'll go with a line of questioning, and when Mr. Viersen took the floor earlier, I thought he was done his line of questioning. There was a pause, and that's why I moved on to Ms. Idlout. I know Mr. Viersen wants to go back to his questioning as well.

To close up this round, I'll go back to Mr. Viersen and let you organize your question. Then we'll try to go forward to finish off a round of questions that require clarification to keep it nice and straight.

I'll go to Mr. Viersen now and then come back to you.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Chair, I'll cede my time to Mr. Schmale, and I'll get back on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Schmale.

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

A swell guy he is.

Just so I understand, because I think I went off track, we're mentioning the agreements now, but the other day when we were talking about agreements, we were told, to my memory, which isn't great all the time, that the agreements don't really matter all that much; it's more about the legislation.

Now we keep referencing agreements, so maybe we can clarify that path just so I understand.

[Julia Redmond]

The agreements that were signed in February 2023 between each of these Métis governments and Canada are sort of precursor agreements to the treaty. That's how they are described within those agreements themselves. They're intended to be replaced by the treaties that will be given legal force and effect through this bill. Those agreements won't get force of law through this legislation, but they form the basis for continuing negotiations with each of those governments and essentially give us a sense of the content of the treaties that will follow.

When I refer to those agreements as being relevant now, it's that they are contracts between Canada and each of these Métis governments. Regardless of whether they get force of law through this legislation, which they don't, there is still an existing agreement on the books between Canada and each of these governments, and there's value in there being consistency in how the collectivities concerned in each of those are described.

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

Okay.

I might have a follow-up, but that's good enough for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, you're next.