Evidence of meeting #87 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 amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I have Mr. McLeod....
I am going to pause here, though, so everybody can put their heads together for a second.
We'll come back in three minutes with Mr. Viersen still having the floor. Then it will be Mr. Vidal and Mr. McLeod. That's my speaking order.
Let's suspend. You guys can have the discussion briefly and we'll come back in three minutes. For now, we're suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
That was a little longer than three minutes, so I'm happy to carry on.
Mr. Viersen, you have the floor, and we'll see where you're at. Then on my speaking list I have Mr. Vidal and Mr. McLeod. That's the order we have.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Ms. Idlout and I had quite a conversation. Again, it goes back to.... I suppose I'll continue to ask for the friendly amendment to perhaps change it to "individuals" from the word "peoples". There is a challenge around how individual Métis would play through this whole process. I'd like this bill to recognize that, and I think that my amendment pursues that ideal, somewhat.
I'll leave my comments there for now, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Ms. Redmond, earlier in your answer to Mr. Carr, I'm not sure you were unequivocal. You said it was the opinion of CIRNA, I believe, or the position of CIRNA, if I'm not mistaken.
Just to flesh this out a bit further, some of the concerns we heard in the committee testimony—and I'm referring back to Alberta specifically—were around the constitution of the MNA and how it dealt with its membership and some of the concerns of some of the communities that Mr. Viersen is talking about.
A bit after that, Mr. Schintz, you talked about how the status quo is that the Métis settlements are...I don't know if “excepted” is the right word, but very clearly separated out from inclusion in this.
What assurance is there to the other folks in these other communities? You said it's already in the bill, that it's already there, yet we specifically reference in the bill the exclusion of....
Maybe it was in the agreements, not the bill—sorry. It might have been in the February 23 agreements that you talked about the Métis settlements being specifically excluded.
What assurance do these other communities have that they're not going to somehow get swallowed up in this, either by the existing constitution of the MNA or some future change to that constitution? Do we not need something like this for them to have that assurance, then?
I hope I'm making my point.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I think so, Mr. Vidal. I will try to respond. There were a few pieces to that.
I'll start with the constitution, the self-government treaty.
While final treaties or self-government treaties that CIRNA negotiates with indigenous partners require that there be a constitution in place, we do not give legal force and effect to those constitutions. Those constitutions are documents that are used for the internal governance of the MNA and the MNA's collectivity.
You asked a question as well, and I think you were asking for some clarification about my earlier comments about the Métis settlements. To try to give some added clarity, what we say in the 2023 agreement signed with MNA is that their laws regarding citizenship will not allow an individual who's eligible for citizenship but is enrolled on either the Indian register or another band list, or enrolled as a member of another Métis government, to be provided citizenship. There is no dual citizenship.
However, we say in the immediate next clause, which is 8.08, that “nothing in this Agreement prevents a member of a Métis Settlement...from registering or being a Citizen” of the MNA. Again, that is the status quo, as we understand it, as it exists today.
In terms of providing added protection or clarity for those who have made clear to this committee that their rights are not being represented by the MNA, I think that is the intention of this committee in bringing forward non-derogation language. I believe we've made our points with respect to that.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
You believe that selecting one of these various clauses would give assurance to those folks who may not be in the existing legislation.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
I think that's fair to say.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I just wanted to speak to the comment Mr. Viersen made about membership in different Métis governments.
I think it was very clear from the witnesses who presented to us that it's up to them to decide who their membership is. As a Métis person, I have had the opportunity to join different Métis governments.
I think the concern is that people who are registered with one government and also with another will get services and benefits from both. I believe—maybe the officials can speak to this—that there is a really clear procedure to follow. For enrolment, family trees and everything else has to be provided so that the government knows exactly who its members are. You cannot be a beneficiary of two settlements or two treaties.
Maybe the officials could speak to that.
Once you register and sign up with one government, you cannot join another one and get the same kind of treatment and benefits, whether it's services, a financial benefit or whatever the case may be.
Federal Negotiations Manager, Negotiations - Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
The treaties are going to be based on those 2023 agreements, and those 2023 agreements provide parameters for those treaty negotiations.
We specify that Métis government laws in the area of citizenship cannot provide for an individual who is eligible to be enrolled as a citizen so long as they are on the list of another indigenous government that has a concluded self-government agreement, whether protected by the Constitution or not protected by the Constitution, and is a stand-alone self-government.
It is a parameter placed on the law-making jurisdiction.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Based on what we've been hearing today, I'd like to propose an amendment to Mr. Viersen's amendment. I could probably take some time to write this, if need be
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Sorry, that's what I meant. Thank you, Chair. See? That's why you're the chair.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I appreciate that. You're a helper.
Can we change the word “Métis peoples” to “Métis individuals”?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
You have to word it in the form of a statement, not a question. We're not on Jeopardy!.
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay. We're in the process of writing that up right now.
For CPC-1.1, remove the words “Métis peoples” and replace them with “Métis individuals”.
We're just going to send it in writing here. It should be coming momentarily.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Quickly, while we're waiting for the email to arrive, I think this addresses—or at least somewhat addresses, or aims to address—some of the concerns that Mr. Viersen is hearing in his riding specifically, because he has a number of settlements in his constituency.
From what we have been told, he is hearing from the people in his area that there is some interest in having the individual Métis recognized, as opposed to a collective, because everyone is an independent thinker and an independent individual who can have the ability—or should have the ability, I guess—to choose who is representing them. If an individual wants to be part of a settlement, or maybe doesn't at all, they would still have that ability to access the same standards as those belonging to, in this case, the MNA.
I hope that addresses the concerns that Mr. Viersen is talking about and allows us to keep moving along. At the end of the day, I think we are really trying to find a path forward and address the concerns that we are hearing on the ground, because it's important that we get this right.
I know the email should be coming.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Could I ask a question while we are waiting for it? I would love to know, from the legal counsel, what the legal impact of that change would look like.