Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 5th, 2023

[Martin Reiher]

What's important is that this is the way these Métis groups are describing themselves. They describe themselves as “Métis collectivities”, so in our negotiations with them, we respect that. I think it's in line with the United Nations declaration on aboriginal people. Therefore, this is a term that is being used, and I think it's important to respect this word in the context of a bill that is designed to implement their treaties. It's respecting the way they describe themselves.

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

I have a whole series of amendments around this as well. Why was it not in the definitions, then? Is there a reason that the definitions don't specifically reference what a Métis collective is? We have “Métis government”. That is in there. Can you give me some reasons as to why it is not a definition?

[Julia Redmond]

A “collective” is a very common legal term used to refer to a rights-bearing group in the sense of section 35 on aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a term of art. Referring to collectives in this way is a common legal term, whether it's Métis or other indigenous peoples.

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

There would be court cases and things like that in which the use of this terminology would have already been ruled on.

[Julia Redmond]

This is not the first time this language would be used.

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

I still think my amendment is substantively different from NDP-4.2. I would suggest that we should pass this amendment to ensure that the concerns of individual Métis people about competing Métis identification are alleviated.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Next on my speaking list I have Mr. Carr, followed by Mr. Battiste, followed by Ms. Idlout.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate two things.

I completely understand where Mr. Viersen is coming from, and Mr. Viersen, you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

You want to ensure, using some form of language, that a group of Métis in Alberta that is not represented, in their own view, by the MNA would not be left out of this bill and would not be excluded from a future agreement with the Government of Canada. I think that is the crux of what you want.

We have been told on several occasions that this is clear, even without the wording that we are currently debating. Before we even get into the debate and the difference between NDP-4.2 and your CPC amendment, we have already had that assurance. The more time we spend debating the difference in “collectivities” versus “people”, which is meant simply to serve as an added layer, the more we are just compounding something that we've already received the answer to.

Perhaps I can ask the officials.

Mr. Viersen, I can't remember the name of the specific group in Alberta you were concerned about.

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

It was the Métis of Cadotte.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

With the current language in the bill, if we adopt either NDP-4.2 or the CPC motion, may I ask the officials if the Métis of Cadotte would be excluded from the ability to engage with the Government of Canada, should this bill pass, in future treaty negotiations or self-governing agreements?

I mean that group specifically.

[Julia Redmond]

My understanding of CIRNA's position on this is that it's not necessary to include a provision like this for that option to be available to those other Métis groups.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay, I know you're saying that it's not necessary, but even if either of those two amendments were adopted as an added assurance, would the Métis of Cadotte see a change in a newly amended bill, using either clause being proposed, that would affect their ability specifically to engage in future treaty negotiations or self-government agreements with the Government of Canada?

[Michael Schintz]

There would be no change. It's our understanding that the proposals may add further clarity or be considered to add further protection, but there would be no change.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, this is now the fourth or fifth time that our officials have reiterated this. I ask that we move on to some of the other amendments that we have before us, because I believe that the assurances that Mr. Viersen is quite rightly searching for have been given and will exist with either the adoption of the NDP amendment or of his particular amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Moving through our list, I have Mr. Battiste next, followed by Ms. Idlout, followed by Mr. Viersen.

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

I'll try to be quick here. We've exhausted that discussion point.

There are several amendments here that have all-party support. I almost feel that if we started going through the ones that we all support, we'd be in a better position to talk about the ones that we don't support because we'd have taken care of the others.

I know that might not be the most efficient way of proceeding, but I see that amendments CPC-1 and NDP-1 are very similar, and if we had passed that non-derogation clause we could have saved 20 minutes of discussion on this.

I'm just wondering how we can make this an efficient process by going through the things that we do support and then going back to all the things on which we might have disagreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

To respond to that, before I go to my next speaker, there is no efficient way. We need to go through clause by clause. We don't get to leapfrog around the paper.

I have a speaking list. We'll get through the speaking list. We'll vote, and when we're done that, we'll go to the next clause and the next clause and the next clause. That's how the process works in clause-by-clause consideration.

I'm ready to go to my next speaker, who is Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate the line of questioning by the Conservatives, which is rare for me.

Having said that, I am curious about the schedule on page 11 of the bill. Under columns 1 and 2, there's slightly different language for “the Métis Nation of Ontario” and “Métis Communities Represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario”. Can you describe why that difference is there?

[Michael Schintz]

The terminology that's used in column 2 of the schedule mirrors the terminology used by our partners in the way that they describe themselves internally, the way they've decided—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Who are your partners? Can you be specific?

[Michael Schintz]

Yes, specifically our partners are the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. This terminology is consistent with the way they describe themselves as part of their internal meetings with their peoples and also with the constituting documents they have to establish their government. These terms are also the terms that are used in the agreements that are binding as contracts and were signed in February of this year with the three parties.

The forward-looking intention is for these terms to be defined clearly as part of the treaty. Before we would be in a position to finalize that treaty, we would need to consult with any group that thought we had established a definition that was too broad. For example, if Cadotte Lake was of the view that they were being captured by the Métis Nation of Alberta definition in the treaty negotiations, we would need to consult with them and ensure that we weren't adversely impacting their rights. That is how CIRNA arrives at final agreements.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I don't know if this a direct response to it, but when we read “Métis collectivity” in the bill, is it because of how it's described in column 2?

[Michael Schintz]

In column 2 it's also terminology that's used in the February 2023 agreements, and it's used throughout the bill as the preferred terminology of our partners.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Does that help answer your question?

I wish I had a word-search thing. If we see the word “collectivity” in here—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

If I could interrupt for a second, I want to also encourage members....

This is a really good discussion, and a lot of the discussion is getting ahead to further amendments down the road. It may help clarify things for them at the point that we get there, but at this point we are on CPC-1.1. I think it's really important that we get the clarification, but when we are done the conversation, we move to a vote so that we can get to the next one.

Anyway, I just want to make sure we're really focusing on this one and that as we move forward, we stay relevant to the clause we're on. I'll just leave that for members to think about as we move forward.

The floor is still yours, Ms. Idlout.