I don't see a purpose in suspending. The discussion points that we're having are not about taxation. We're on the clauses of taxation, and we're trying to get through the points of taxation, and then we're getting into general ones.
However, for greater clarity, even if Mr. Viersen and Ms. Idlout come to an amendment that speaks about land, it will still be deemed out of scope under what the chair has ruled on. If we bring in something that comes into land, then we're bringing something that's outside the scope of this legislation. Once again, the purpose of this legislation is self-government. The minister himself said that lands and resources are not within the contemplation of this legislation.
What we're trying to work towards is recognizing that there will be future treaties signed that are on self-government alone, based on what we've heard from the testimony. For all other rights, we've already captured that with a non-derogation clause that we've all agreed to.
I think that a lot of this is a moot point, because even if there was a potential amendment that came back and that talked about lands or resources or anything like that, it would be deemed out of scope. What happens if we say we want to start talking about lands? Do we then start talking about resources? Do we then start talking about fishing? Do we then start talking about things that this legislation is not intended to be a part of?
What we will be doing is basically putting on the shelf this important legislation for the Métis, based on the assumption that maybe some day, at some point, there may be a treaty with them that talks about lands or resources. However, that's not in the contemplation of this legislation or the future treaties moving forward. We're stuck on a point that, to me, is a moot point, because this is not within the contemplation of the legislation, and the chair has ruled on that.
I don't see why we're stopping at clauses 13 and 14, which refer to taxation—not land, not resources—and stopping this whole process. I just don't understand why we can't get through the clauses that have no amendments presented by anyone.