Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late. My computer decided to update itself and then wouldn't let me sign in.
I'm listening with great interest and, I guess, a little bit of surprise, as a Métis person and an MP who represents a riding with three different Métis organizations, two in negotiations and one that has an application in for negotiations. We've already settled with a number of Métis across the territories on this very issue. In the Northwest Territories, the Métis—the Northwest Territories Métis, the Métis across the Mackenzie and the Dehcho—are negotiating land. They're negotiating royalties. They're negotiating regulatory participation. They want to be part of the decision-making.
I find it strange, when we have all of these indigenous governments working towards rebuilding and reconstituting their nations, that we have an MP from Alberta, which is an hour and a half away from me, trying to do the opposite. I feel that Mr. Viersen is blocking his own constituents from moving forward, and it's certainly creating a wedge, I think, among the Métis people in Alberta. I have talked to the Métis Nation of Alberta. I've talked to the Métis Settlements. They want the exact same thing that the Métis in the Northwest Territories are negotiating and in some cases have already settled.
We're really going to have a double standard across the country if we have one group of Métis enjoying all of the benefits of being partners with governments, where they can stand shoulder to shoulder and be part of decision-making. It's something that we've never had for 150 years. We didn't sit at the table when decisions were made, but we need to be there. The intention of all these agreements all across the country was to be able to coexist and to co-manage. This certainly doesn't lend itself to that.
I think the injustices that were done in the past when it came to the scrip with the Métis may not have been totally the government's fault, but they're the ones that brought in the scrip traders, who bought up all of the scrip agreements to the point where, in the north and even in part of Alberta, I think, they took the land issue out of the scrip because they were being swindled. The Métis were being swindled. As the people were coming across—the government parties and the treaty parties—they were bringing wagonloads of whisky and they were taking the scrip as people were signing it. The scrip in the Northwest Territories doesn't include land because they felt that it was wrong, and the rest of the country was becoming very aware of what was happening and raising concerns.
Let's not forget that the Métis in Alberta and the Métis included in this bill all have protection under the Daniels case. If this amendment is going to go forward and gut the intention of what some of these indigenous governments are trying to achieve, we're going to end up in court. I feel that it certainly goes beyond the bill. I feel that it's just going to stick a stick in our spokes. We should be working toward supporting indigenous governments to stand on their own two feet. That means we have to settle all these different issues.
Treaties are intended as, and should have always been treated as, living documents, agreements that are evergreen—on Treaty 5 or Treaty 10 or whatever the case may be—with increments where a review is done. What is agreed on today is not necessarily right for tomorrow. We have a number of land claims that are settled in the Northwest Territories. Many of the indigenous governments are looking back and saying, “Well, things have evolved so much that some of these sections of our land claims agreement or self-government agreement don't make sense anymore. We need to redo them.”
It's a little bit upsetting to see this amendment come forward from the Conservatives. I thought we were all on the same page, moving forward with trying to make sure that Métis governments, first nations governments and Inuit were all on the right path to have some wrongs from the past righted, but I don't think this amendment does that. Rather, I think it would cause a lot of problems for the Métis, and that's certainly not fair, because they're the only ones who are going to be dealing with this. You never see this with an Inuit agreement; you never see this with a first nations agreement, and you don't see this with other Métis organizations and governments. It's just with the ones involved in this bill.
