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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to respond to what Mr. Battiste said around the paternalism aspect of this. That's kind of the crux of the problem with the entire bill, to some degree. The Liberal government has handed out somewhere between $70 million and $90 million to organizations that they deemed to be governments. They were given that money to develop themselves into governments.

There is a level of paternalism that comes in there. I get it; this is hard work. Building nations and governments is hard work, and you have to make choices. People have to decide. Some of these things kind of come up from the ether. You can't necessarily pick and choose, and that's the crux of this bill. That's not necessarily distinct to this particular amendment.

The challenge of nation building is that you need the consent of the governed. You need to say what the governments are. Sometimes they're de facto. Sometimes they're imposed from on high.

Coming from Alberta, I know a lot about struggles against being governed and who governs us and things like that. Arbitrary lines have been drawn to develop the Government of Alberta. Today the Government of Alberta is a de facto thing. Nobody is disputing that, but the reality is that the Liberal government picked who was going to be the Métis government when they handed out money. They said, “Here, you seem like a government. Here's some money to go develop yourself into being a government.” That's over the last three to five years—I'm not exactly sure. It is the role of government to make these decisions to govern people.

When we are going to define things in law, I think it's entirely upon the legislative branch of our country to have discussions. To be called “paternalistic” I don't think is helpful in these discussions because there a judgment has to be made. We have to pick at some point where we're going with this.

I still think it's important to get similar wording to recognize folks like the Métis of Cadotte and the Métis of Fort McKay to ensure their voices have been heard in this discussion. There are people called Métis in this country, and how they organize themselves is up to them. I just want to point out that the federal government picked a particular entity to create a government out of that. That is the crux of this.

I want to thank Mr. Battiste for bringing that up and allowing me to speak to it. Once again, I think we could come to an agreement on this if we put together the NDP amendment and our amendment, but I will leave that to the committee.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Carr, you have the floor next.

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

I have a couple of things.

I appreciate where Mr. Viersen is coming from, but I take exception to some of the language being used and would just caution.... I come from a province where the former premier two premiers ago called Métis “special interest groups”. With words like “handouts”, I think we are perhaps missing the constitutional obligations we have to recognize these groups. I would just caution my colleague in some of the language we're using as we describe the role that the federal government plays in building partnerships. I appreciate that he's using the term “nation building”, but when we characterize the relationships with things like “handouts”, I think we do a disservice to what we're trying to achieve.

I also appreciate where Ms. Idlout is coming from. Without presuming to know exactly what her thought process was, I think she's expressing frustration over a variety of areas in which first nations are still not being served to the extent that we'd like to see them be served and that we're obligated to.

If I may, I want to come to Mr. Schintz's defence a bit, because my interpretation of his comments was not that he was in any way trying to create a contrast between different groups of indigenous people in the country. I think he was speaking specifically to the ongoing negotiations that have been taking place for quite some time among these particular Métis governments and the Government of Canada. I thought it was a bit unfair, but I completely appreciate the perspective being taken.

Lastly, I think I'd leave it to our departmental colleagues to comment on this if necessary. I think the crux of all of this has been—and we've been through it a couple of times now—that should Métis groups that do not wish to be within Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta recognize the governments that are being negotiated with in this legislation, that does not prevent those groups from entering into their own legislative agreements with the Government of Canada in the future.

If my understanding is correct, then the point can be raised time and time again, and I appreciate the point, as it makes sense and I understand where it comes from. However, if there is an ability for the government or future governments to negotiate with the groups that some of my colleagues feel are left out, then perhaps the better use of focus and energy would be to work with those communities in the development of a legislative framework that they could introduce in the House of Commons and bring forward, to make sure that those voices are represented in a way that they don't feel is represented here.

Having said all of that, Mr. Chair, may I suggest that we move to a vote on this particular clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll move to vote as soon as we're done with our list. Right now I have Mr. Viersen next on my speaking list—

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

I'm sorry. I didn't see that Arnold had his hand up.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

—and then Ms. Idlout after Mr. Viersen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This again comes to the crux of it. Ms. Goulet spoke here. She is Métis. She has an affinity for her Métis people and is not wishing to be separated from them. That's the challenge here. You say that this won't affect people who don't want to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta. That's true if she doesn't want to be part of the Métis Nation of Alberta, but she does identify with.... She is Métis, and these are her brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles and aunts. She feels herself to be part of the Métis people and doesn't think that this is the correct method of governance, or the correct government.

To say, they're not affected.... No, actually they are quite affected by this. The federal government has picked a particular organization to call the Métis government of Alberta. That's what we're getting at.

I don't think we're going to turn back time on this, but it isn't that she's unaffected by the federal government picking the Métis Nation of Alberta to be the partner the federal government is going to operate with. I think that's been missing in this entire discussion—to say that she's not affected. No, she is very much affected by this. She was a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta prior to it seeking government status. That is a reality we need to focus on and ensure is captured in this entire discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Next I have Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Just to correct the misinterpretation of what I said and what was heard differently, I said that it's great to see bureaucrats fighting so actively for an indigenous group and I don't see that same kind of fight for other indigenous groups. I'm not saying anything against anything else.

I have a question for those who might not be understanding why we're discussing the schedule so intently. When I look at column 2, I see differences. For example, column 1 has “Métis Nation of Alberta”, column 2 has “Métis Nation within Alberta”, item 2 has “Métis Nation of Ontario” and column 2 has “Métis Communities Represented by the Métis Nation of Ontario”. Then there's “Métis Nation–Saskatchewan”, and it's the same wording for Alberta.

Can you describe how the intent of this came to be so that they are worded differently?

[Michael Schintz]

Yes. I want to take a moment to say that I understand why there's so much discussion around the schedule, and I certainly understand what the committee is trying to achieve. As to the terminology that's found in the schedule, these are the terms that these governments use for themselves. For example, the Métis Nation of Alberta represents about 56,000 Métis individuals in Alberta. They've chosen them as their government. They recently voted on a constitution that was overwhelmingly passed, and these are the terms they use in their constituting documents to describe themselves and the way they're structured, both as rights holders and as governments.

We've used the terms that these governments use for themselves. We think this is befitting of self-determination.

I just want to say one more time that regardless of whether or not these terms were changed, no group is having these governments imposed on them. Any individual Métis community has the ability to represent itself, to advocate for its rights. Changes to this terminology will not change that. What it will do is remove the ability of these governments to see their own way of describing themselves reflected in this bill, which is meant to recognize them.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I have nobody else on my speaking list, so I'm ready to call the question on CPC-7.

Ms. Idlout, we'll go to you before I call the question.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm sorry, but I have a follow-up question based on his response.

When you were negotiating with the Métis Nation of Alberta on their agreement, did you consult with the Metis Settlements General Council?

[Michael Schintz]

No, we did not consult with the Metis Settlements General Council. The reason we did not consult with the Metis Settlements General Council is that the agreement signed in February 2023 is a contract, and it's only binding on the parties that signed it.

We did include language at 15.05 of that contract that says:

Nothing in this Agreement impacts or affects the rights, jurisdiction, powers, or responsibilities of the Metis Settlements General Council or a Metis Settlement, including the ownership of Metis Settlement lands, as recognized in Alberta’s Metis Settlements Act, the Metis Settlements Land Protection Act, and the Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act.

I certainly heard the testimony from the Métis settlements that they feel more consultation was warranted. I had given earlier testimony to say that before the treaties that this legislation intends to give effect to can be finalized, before they can be signed and before they can be given legal force and effect, it is incumbent on the Government of Canada to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on any first nation or Métis people who are not represented by these governments. That will certainly include the Metis Settlements General Council, and we will have deep and meaningful consultation with them on the terms of that treaty.

I certainly appreciate that frustration was raised by the settlements and that they would have liked a discussion before the signing of this agreement. However, this is my answer, MP Idlout.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We will now call the question on CPC-7. I'm curious as to where this is going to go.

Do you want it recorded?

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

We can record it if you think it's going to be close.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll move to NDP-5 and see if the member for NDP-5 would like to move this amendment.

Colleagues, just so you know, we do have a hard stop for resource purposes today two hours from the time we started. We need to end at 1:01 today.

I see Ms. Idlout. If you would like to move the motion, we'll see if there's any discussion. We'll start off with you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

I would like to move that NDP-5 be added. I keep forgetting how to make these amendment proposals.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Now you can just go into your explanation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

This wording was in consultation with the Metis Settlements General Council, which wanted to clarify that the MNA does not represent all Métis collectives in Alberta and that there is an existing Métis governance system in Alberta that must be respected.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, I have you first on my list.

I was told we have a couple more minutes, until about 1:05 or 1:07. I'll hear from Mr. Viersen and see where we're at.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to raise a point of order.

I would like us to keep to the established schedule. I have a live televised interview at 1:05 p.m.; I have to oppose this decision so we can finish the meeting at 1:02 p.m. at the latest.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're at what would be the normal ending time. I'll carry forward with a speaking list for when we resume on Wednesday. Mr. Viersen will be first up.

Colleagues, I've had a request about timing for the Wednesday meeting. We have a number of votes scheduled that may affect our start time. Normally, we get two hours from the time we start. There are some members who have flights near our regular end time. I'll see what that looks like. I'll negotiate with everybody on what Wednesday's schedule will look like and get back to you.

Because of the speaking order, we're going to suspend for today and then start back up with Mr. Viersen speaking to NDP-5.

We're suspended until we meet again sometime on Wednesday.

[The meeting was suspended at 1:01 p.m., Monday, January 29]

[The meeting resumed at 5:46 p.m., Wednesday, January 31]

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

I apologize for the late start. We had 10 votes in the House that were just concluded.

We are resuming meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, suspended on Monday, January 29, 2024.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

The first order of business we have today before we return to our clause-by-clause is that Madam Gill, who was the second vice-chair of the committee, has been reassigned by her party, so we welcome Monsieur Sébastien Lemire, who was appointed a member of the committee on Monday, January 29, following the adoption of PROC report 56.

As such, the committee needs to elect a new second vice-chair. I'm going to now turn the proceedings over to the clerk, who will lead the election of our new second vice-chair.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Cédric Taquet]

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice‑chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

I am therefore now prepared to receive motions for the position of second vice‑chair.

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

I'd like to move the motion that Sébastien Lemire be the second vice-chair.