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?