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

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

The crux of what we're trying to get at here.... I'm beginning to be convinced that perhaps I shouldn't vote for this amendment just because the Métis Nation of Alberta is a Métis government and then that Métis collective....

Mr. Schintz, because we've established that there can be additions to this, could there be in the future an addition to columns 1 and 2 that says, for example, “Métis of Cadotte Lake”? Could an addition happen at some point in the future for them to be a recognized Métis government?

That's what we're trying to get at. There are groups of Métis that don't want to be recognized by the Métis Nation of Alberta. Could you see that happening, or is the schedule one and done and there would have to be a whole new bill and set agreements going forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll go to Mr. Schintz for a response.

[Michael Schintz]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Viersen.

The answer to your question is that, yes, theoretically there could be an addition. The Métis of Cadotte Lake are an example.

I would point to clause 20 of this bill, which would require consent from the Métis governments listed in schedule 1. In the absence of everyone arriving at that consent, another option would certainly be to have a separate bill that is co-developed with another Métis government that wanted to define for itself what self-determination and self-government should look like.

I want to add that we've stated previously that any other indigenous community has the ability to approach Canada to seek to have those discussions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Carr, you're next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to distill all of this down, perhaps, to it simplest form. I'm checking my own understanding.

Here's where I think we are. Some members of the committee are concerned that there are faults within the bill because it leaves out certain groups that they believe should be included. Having said that, I think we all agree that the governments listed in the bill as it stands now deserve to have this bill and deserve to have their rights met through the agreements that would come to force should the bill pass.

Unless I'm mistaken, if we all agree that this bill serves the purpose of adhering to the agreements with those governments and that it's been established many times over now that any other group will not be prohibited in the future from entering into an agreement the same way these three governments did—as our lawyers, other witnesses and technicians, as Jaime calls them, have told us—I see no reason why, at this stage of our discussions, we cannot move forward in support of something we all agree on: getting these three governments what they deserve, which are the rights they are entitled to through these agreements. Then we commit as a group to perhaps correcting some of the wrongs in the way this legislation was brought forward initially—before my time—and we have a conversation about why the groups that Ms. Idlout, Mr. Viersen and others have rightly raised concerns about were absent from the conversation.

To summarize, I don't understand why we should hold this process up when we all agree that these three governments should have the rights trusted to them through this bill and the agreements that will ensue, and when we know for certain the process can be repeated in the future with the groups that are currently left out, in their view.

If I have summarized that in a clear and articulate way, I hope it lends some thoughtfulness to how we decide to approach this moving forward. I feel as though at this stage it is becoming less about seeking answers and clarity and more about simple opposition to things that I think we all agree can be corrected down the line.

I simply wanted to add that commentary, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Next on my list I have Mr. Schmale.

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

I'm good now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Vidal is next.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, my point is totally different from where we're at.

I see another hand. You can finish that first and come back or I can ask my question, whatever is easier for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I can drop you down to the bottom, because I had some other hands on this discussion.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Yes, mine is going to be a different discussion. It's a question I want clarity on.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have Ms. Idlout and then Mr. Viersen.

Ms. Idlout, it's over to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

When we first received this bill, I think I was like lots of other Canadians. I didn't know that there were so many different Métis collectives in all of Canada, never mind that there was more than one in Alberta. I learned of the existence of the Metis Settlements General Council and how they were not consulted or included. When I thought there would only be one Métis nation within Alberta, I saw nothing wrong with this bill.

I was probably as eager as Jaime has been to just push this forward, but because of the testimony we've been hearing from first nations and other Métis.... I also need to make it abundantly clear that I've not been filibustering just to delay this process. I've been asking questions, because it's been demanded of me. I think I've made it very clear that I absolutely agree that Métis have a right to self-government.

In this context of column 2, I am trying to maybe help get other Canadians to realize that there's not only one Métis collective within Alberta. By proposing my amendment to say that there are other collectives in Alberta, nothing is being diminished. The MNA's goal for self-government is not being diminished. If the Metis Settlements General Council wants to seek a similar recognition with a bill like this, it will even help them.

When I hear the value of keeping things consistent between two documents pedagogically, because of what I've learned in law school, I know how important that is. When it comes to ensuring that as parliamentarians we're recognizing that there's more than one Métis collective in Alberta, we'll have to make sure there's that acknowledgement in column 2.

I'm not trying to just make simple amendments. This is something that helps acknowledge.... Out of my own ignorance, I didn't know that there was more than one Métis nation in Alberta. I think including that text in column 2 will actually help get more Canadians to realize that there may be the Métis.... Maybe you already had them, I don't know, but that's not the point. I just wanted to clarify that a bit more.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

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

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

Just to respond to Mr. Carr—and perhaps I didn't necessarily realize this till Mr. Schintz pointed it out—clause 20, on the amendment to the schedule, says:

is satisfied that the Métis government set out in that column 1 or set out in column 1 opposite that information has consented to the amendment or removal.

That is a bit of a challenge. I think I'm happy to leave the schedule as it is, provided there could be other groups added to it, but that isn't the case if clause 20 is how Mr. Schintz said it is. Perhaps we have to go back and have a look at that.

I had an amendment that would have put additions in there. We talked about this at that point in time, but we never had any discussion about consent of. We said additions are alluded to in the word “amend”—because I wanted to put “add, amend or remove”—but are they?

Mr. Carr, I hope for a response from you around how we rationalize that.

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

Mr. Chair, may I respond to that? He wants me to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have Mr. Vidal next on my list, but we'll go to Mr. Carr and then come back to Mr. Vidal.

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

Perhaps Mr. Schintz inadvertently created a bit of confusion, with all due respect. I think the confusion is—and perhaps Mr. Schintz can clarify this, Mr. Viersen—that it's not that consent would be needed by the governments listed in this legislation for any new piece of legislation to come forward, which is what I'm suggesting they can do and we should be supportive of. What he is saying is that for this specific piece of legislation to be amended to include those groups, it would require the consent of the governments in this particular piece of legislation. In other words, the distinction is that this legislation specifically, with these three governments, could only be amended if those governments consented. However, it does not change the fact that, as we've said many times before, the other governments you've referred to have the ability to come forward with their own legislation in the future that would not require consent because it would be independent of this legislation. It would be a brand new piece of legislation, hypothetically, so it would not require the consent of the governments in this bill.

I hope I've clarified accurately, Mr. Viersen, where your concern lies.

Mr. Schintz, you can certainly comment on that.

[Michael Schintz]

That's absolutely correct, Mr. Carr. Part of the reason for that is this bill is about these governments and their citizens.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Viersen, I'll go to you now to continue this conversation, and then I'll put Mr. Vidal after you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are, I think, 636 first nation governments in Canada, and they're recognized in a similar fashion across the country.

This bill sets out to recognize Métis governments. I get the Liberal government's interest in having only three to deal with—because that makes it easier, for sure—but the Métis of Cadotte, the Métis of Fort McKay and the folks from Lethbridge we heard from—I can't remember what their names are off the top—are going to be pursuing their Métis governments. Would it not be effective to add them to this list?

In the same way as we have 636 first nation governments in this country and they're recognized as first nation governments—and that's pretty well understood—I would assume that Métis governments.... For example, with whatever is going to happen in Manitoba, would they not get added to this list in the future? With whatever happens in B.C., would they not get added to this list, or are they going to be pursuing a totally separate avenue, essentially, Mr. Schintz?

[Michael Schintz]

As the negotiator for the Manitoba Métis Federation as well, I can say that their intention is to have their own bill. There are something like 26 implementing statutes for self-government agreements in modern treaties that exist, and in general, they are specific to individual governments that have negotiated on their own terms and in a manner befitting their own vision of self-determination.

These three governments have chosen to advance self-government together. We detailed some of that history in the preamble and some of the negotiations that have led to this point.

The intention of this bill is to recognize those three governments, and just to say it one last time, other governments have every right and ability to come forward to the Government of Canada to negotiate similar recognition. They're not all generally put into one piece of legislation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Go ahead, Mr. Vidal.