Thank you.
I still feel like I'm a brand new MP, although I know it has been a couple of years. I was quite surprised by what we heard. In my initial meetings with the presidents of the three Métis nations, I was told there would not be any opposition to this bill because it was something that had been a long time coming, something we needed to acknowledge, and I completely agree that the Métis have a right to self-government. What I'm shocked by is how much opposition we heard from first nations and even other Métis.
Having heard those kinds of things was why I ended up submitting NDP-4.02, which would help alleviate those concerns.
To make it specifically clear, in addition to the two amendments that I'm very thankful the whole committee agreed to about the non-derogation clauses, what I had hoped for with NDP-4.02 was to make it explicitly clear. The reason I bring it to this discussion of clause 14 is that it does talk about treaties and land claims. The part where I'm still new to this is that I don't understand how rulings work—the ruling behind my amendment being out of scope without a real explanation as to why is what confuses me.
Getting that kind of clarification would be very helpful, because I feel like NDP-4.02 and clause 14 are connected in such a way that we are, yes, respecting treaty rights, that we are not talking about land claims and that we're not talking about implications to first nations or to other Métis where they already have land in Alberta, for example.
I just want to clarify that. It seems, if you're just going to sustain your decision about NDP-4.02, then that's, I guess, what we have to be left with.