I don't think that's necessarily true, if you read what the self-government agreements say. My friends from the Manitoba Métis Federation conveniently ignored that.
Those self-government agreements say what will be within the treaty. I want to say this model was used in the Yukon. There are 14 first nations in the Yukon. At the time that implementation legislation was brought before Parliament, only four of those treaties had been signed, so there was a schedule saying, “Here are the other ones. When they get to treaties, an order in council will be passed and they'll be put into schedule II.” Look at the legislation. We replicated that in light of trying to finally create this legislative cradle, so we don't get the rug pulled out from under us at a future time.
I also want to highlight that none of the historic treaties have ever been brought before Parliament. Amendments to treaties happen all the time that don't get brought before Parliament. I think those agreements clearly set out what the treaties will include. They will be self-government treaties, and those agreements are legally binding agreements guiding the negotiations.
If additional guardrails need to be put in there, that's a discussion. However, it can't be said that this has never been done before. Treaties have been brought in by order in council in the Yukon for multiple others. I don't understand why it's so different for the Métis.