Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't get an answer to my question. The question is, is there not room...? Mr. Battiste is saying that we shouldn't amend the schedule because that is how “the stakeholders”, in his words, want it to be written. I am saying there is a Métis government listed in column 1, “Métis Nation of Alberta”, and then the collectivity that it has in column 2 is “Métis Nation within Alberta”. That's a kind of circular logic right there.
Maybe we're pursuing it—from both Ms. Idlout and Mr. Schmale—in the wrong column. Maybe we're supposed to be pursuing it in a.... I don't know. This is right, but could we not broaden it? I think Ms. Idlout's amendment broadens the collectivity.
Perhaps where we're mistaken—and Mr. Schintz could point this out to us—is that there has to be an addition. This goes back to a previous amendment I had for putting in the word “add”. Can there be additions to column 2 without additions to column 1? Does that makes sense, Mr. Schintz?