Bill C-53

Recognition of Certain Métis Governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan and Métis Self-Government Act

An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment provides for the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan and provides a framework for the implementation of treaties entered into by those Métis governments and the Government of Canada. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'd like to thank you and, at the same time, publicly congratulate you on your appointment. I appreciate your comments at the outset that this committee is capable of working collaboratively. I hope it will always be so, because that's the way to move forward on all the issues on the table here, including Bill C‑ 53.

I'd now like to come back to what you said about the issue of consultations in discussing things with my colleague Mr. McLeod. You said that, from the perspective of reconciliation, things had to be done in a certain way. At the committee, several witnesses said that passing Bill C-53, or even introducing it, was a step backwards for reconciliation. They also argued that it did not comply with article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'd like to know what your response would be to all the witnesses who raised these two arguments.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I'll also call you Michael, if it's okay.

Look, I think Bill C-53 respects Métis self-determination, with citizenship decisions falling under the authority of the Métis government. This is aligned with the principles outlined in the Powley decision, which recognizes the significance of shaping the legal landscape for Métis rights. The tests, essentially as set out by the Supreme Court, are as follows.

The first is self-identification as a member of the Métis community. The second is evidence of an ancestral connection to a historic Métis community. The third is a demonstration of acceptance by the modern community, whose continuity with the historic community provides the legal foundation for the right being claimed.

Essentially, the registrars of the three provinces that we are talking about have gone through and reviewed their processes. In the case of Ontario, some 6,000 citizens who have incomplete records were removed from the list. As a starting point, we're in a very vigorously assessed system that has identified the citizens in each of the provinces and the membership of those who want to be part of these nations. I'm very comfortable in confirming today that this is the process that will continue.

There's also an audit process that's independently undertaken, as well as a cross-reference to registries that are held by the federal government. For example, if somebody is identified under the Indian Act, they would be cross-referenced.

There's a very rigorous process that does enable these governments to determine their citizenship and to ensure that there's continuous scrutiny of who is and who is not a member.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Again, I think, in terms of amendments, that my answer will be consistent in that respect, Jamie. We will look at every amendment that's before us and we will give it due consideration.

I do think it's important to underscore that the treaty process as contemplated within Bill C-53 is one that does go through an order in council process, so it's not a pro forma exercise. It is one that goes through scrutiny, so there is a cabinet process that would have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 86th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We acknowledge that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format with members online but no witnesses.

I think everybody knows, now that we're in session, that there are no photos or screen shots allowed. That's for everybody at the table as well as anybody in the audience.

Today we're continuing our study of Bill C-53. We are delighted to have our minister with us. We have the Honourable Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and officials. I understand, although we've had a late start, that the minister will be able to stay for an hour.

We'll get into the opening statements, and then for the second hour we'll invite the officials to remain with us and we'll continue on for the second hour.

We have secured extra resources, so we should be able to go the full two hours. In fact, I was able to get resources beyond that—we haven't received approval yet—but I did want to make sure, given all the testimony that we've heard, that we have the full two hours. I know many of us have flights booked for tonight, so we'll respect that.

Minister, I'm not sure if you're going to do opening remarks, but if you are, you have five minutes. I'm going to use my handy card system, with the yellow card meaning there are 30 seconds left on the clock; red means time's up. Don't stop; finish your thought, and then we'll move on to the next person.

Go ahead when you're ready.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We are out of time. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Again, your insights are very important as we undergo consideration of Bill C-53.

Colleagues, with that, we are now adjourned for today.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

My next question is for the AFN. I leave it to the AFN to decide who will answer my questions.

I know that we've heard, since we started studying this bill, that first nations haven't felt that their rights, as acknowledged in UNDRIP, have been recognized.

If you had the guidance to give this government about what FPIC means and why FPIC is so important, how would you make sure it had been followed to ensure that Bill C-53 could have been different from what we see today?

[Julie McGregor]

A non-derogation clause would not have the intended effect of remedying the issues with Bill C-53. It would also put a burden on first nations, because it would be the first nations who would then have to challenge the legislation in court. As you heard from the interim national chief, first nations already have the tremendous burden of having to prove their rights and get the recognition that this legislation already affords the Métis.

[Julie McGregor]

It's not a yes-or-no question.

If I'm allowed to elaborate on what I mean, the non-derogation clause alone would act as a reminder that first nations have rights in this case only because of the broad wording of clauses 8 and 9 under “Métis Governments” in Bill C-53. The rights described there are very broadly written, so a non-derogation clause would act only as a reminder that, “Oh yeah, first nations have rights too.”

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

It seems the federal government is a live player in Bill C-53, given the fact that it's putting money into determining who is the rights holder, essentially.

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

Many of these locals have millions of dollars in assets. What happens to those assets as Bill C-53 progresses?

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

Now, some folks from locals have been concerned about the fact that the locals are being dissolved with Bill C-53. Is that the case?

[Julie McGregor, Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Julie McGregor. I'm senior legal counsel with the Assembly of First Nations. I'm also a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation, part of the Algonquin nation. This is my territory—my unceded territory.

I want to take the brief time I have to go over a few points on the interim national chief's remarks that she's already provided and maybe key in on the three issues that we want to focus on with the time we have.

Bill C-53 broadly recognizes Métis inherent rights and jurisdictions. This broad recognition fails to consider the potential impacts on first nations and does not include safeguards to prevent infringement on first nation rights. It doesn't include a process for addressing overlaps of infringements on inherent treaty and aboriginal rights. While the stated intent of this legislation—we've been told this by many committee members—is for internal matters related to Métis self-governance, it sets the stage for future negotiated treaties that may relate to those issues.

As well, Bill C-53 allows further Métis-Crown treaties to be ratified by Governor in Council rather than requiring scrutiny by Parliament and first nations. Given the potential significant adverse impacts to first nations rights and interests, Bill C-53 should be subject to approval by Parliament and to an opportunity for meaningful input by first nations. You heard this even from the previous panel that came before you.

The Government of Canada should explain clearly why it has advanced a lower threshold for approving Métis-Crown treaties, which differs from the process for many of the treaties signed between the Crown and first nations. Failure to provide a clear and convincing answer to this question will heighten the serious concerns regarding the fairness with which first nations are being treated with their rights recognition versus how Métis rights are being treated under this legislation.

Meegwetch.

[Joanna Bernard, Interim National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Kwe kwe and greetings.

My name is Joanna Bernard, interim national chief for the Assembly of First Nations and a regional chief for New Brunswick.

First I would like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik and that the committee is gathered today on unceded Algonquin territory.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak on Bill C-53 on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. It is critical that you hear first nations' concerns about the potential impact of Bill C-53 and the Government of Canada's failure to consult with first nations on this legislation.

First, I will provide opening remarks, and then I will turn it over to Julie McGregor, senior legal counsel for the AFN, to provide our comments on Bill C-53.

In July 2023, the first nations in assembly passed resolution 44/2023 to protect first nations rights and interests from unfounded Métis rights assertions. This resolution directs the AFN to voice its opposition to unfounded Métis rights assertions and the role of government in recognizing those unfounded assertions.

The Assembly of First Nations is a national advocacy organization for first nations; the AFN is not a government or a rights holder. For centuries, the Government of Canada has failed to recognize, implement and uphold first nations rights. Existing policies such as the comprehensive land claims and inherent rights to self-government policies deny first nations title and rights.

First nations rights, which are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution, should be upheld and implemented in the same manner as those of all other indigenous groups. Currently, first nations must prove their inherent rights to self-government through costly and time-consuming legal battles with the federal, provincial and territorial governments. There is no first nations equivalent to Bill C-53.

The broad generic recognition of Métis rights is unfair and gives preference to one particular aboriginal group. In this context, the broad recognition of Métis rights through Bill C-53 shows how arbitrary and unfair the processes are to recognizing indigenous rights. Bill C-53's broad recognition of Métis rights creates a deep sense of unfairness for first nations whose rights have been denied by the Government of Canada.

The federal government has failed to adequately consult first nations prior to tabling Bill C-53. Canada has not met its minimal duty to consult first nations, nor has it upheld the principles of free, prior and informed consent in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The honour of the Crown requires the Government of Canada to act honourably in all its interactions with indigenous peoples. First nations have raised serious, credible concerns about the potential impacts of Bill C-53. Advancing Bill C-53 without proper consultation with first nations is inconsistent with the honour of the Crown.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-53, and I will now turn it over to Julie McGregor, senior legal counsel for AFN, to provide further comments.

Thank you.

[Dr. Adam Browning]

Thank you, sir.

My name is Dr. Adam Browning. Since 2019 I've been president of the Métis Nation of Alberta Local 2003. We are the chosen representatives for a large community of Métis in southern Alberta. Until this past September, we were part of the Métis Nation of Alberta Association, the MNA.

The MNA, in our view, is a provincial corporation drawn along provincial boundaries. It is not a rights-bearing historical community. From our point of view, it's an advocacy organization, much like the Assembly of First Nations.

By contrast, our Métis community here traces its history to forts and settlements inhabited around Cypress Hills and Belly River, in what is now southern Alberta. Many of our members descend from families that have existed here for over 200 years, and we continue to exist here as a distinct people.

Our community incorporated our current body as a local within the MNA, with the MNA acting as an advocacy group. Our current council and our many past leaders remain with us as elders. They have observed that the MNA has sought to assert itself as a government over our community.

If, with respect, Bill C-53 is successful, it will see the MNA constitution complete this attempt to assert control over our people. The new MNA constitution asserts that the MNA and its newly-formed Métis government represent all Alberta Métis and Métis communities. We feel this assertion illegitimately arrogates power to the MNA to broadly govern Alberta Métis.

While we're certainly in support of our self-governments, our Métis community has not agreed to cede our communal constitutional rights to the MNA. We were deeply concerned with Canada's February 2023 funding agreement with the MNA, whereby Canada stated that the MNA is the government of the Métis Nation of Alberta, comprising both registered members of the MNA and Alberta Métis communities.

Canada and the MNA are using individuals with no connection to our community to assert control over our community. While this may be convenient and politically expedient for Canada, it is contrary to section 35 of the Constitution. Most of all, it concerns us that Bill C-53 proposes to formally recognize the MNA in clause 8 of the draft bill as “an Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis” within Alberta.

Bill C-53 provides us with zero consultation with Canada or the MNA corporate leadership. This is done while providing millions in unaccounted funding to the MNA, of which little to none enters our community. This legislation, in our view, is top down. The consultation approach to self-government must, with respect, be rejected by this committee.

The MNA also repeatedly rejects any court oversight of its actions, claiming to be a mere corporate entity. This bill will continue that judicial gap and impunity for the MNA by carving it out of the Federal Court like all first nations are currently subject to. In our view, this is unconstitutional, and it creates a government that is not subject to independent courts.

Mr. Chair and committee, with respect, there is no Métis nation unified across all of Alberta. As you've heard from other communities, that is an incorrect assertion. We are many distinct communities with distinct rights. Bill C-53, in its present form, is a threat to Métis communities in Alberta, such as mine, notwithstanding commitments made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This bill, in its current form, errs in the recognition of who the Métis in Alberta are. The recognition of the MNA, as the indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis nation within Alberta, represents, in our view, an infringement on the section 35 rights of local Métis communities, such as the one I represent with pride here today.

With respect, to the committee, we'd like to make two concluding statements. Bill C-53 should be rejected in its current form. I appeal to you on behalf of my community, and on behalf of my elders. We are a large community. This bill should limit recognition to Métis communities that have collectively and democratically chosen to be represented by their listed Métis government. Barring such an amendment, our community leadership will oppose any legislation that infringes on our sovereignty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee. That's my opening statement.

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for the clarification.

Again, I think it comes back to “nation to nation” and trying to be equals around a table. By speaking nation to nation, we're going to hear about all of our concerns and objections—all the positives, negatives and what have you. When we don't get to speak nation to nation, we're just left as.... I don't like it when terms such as “indigenous groups”, “Métis group” or “Inuit group” get used, because we are not a group. We are nations within the nation of Canada.

We need to be equals when we are sitting around any table, whether it's the breakfast table or this table we're sitting at here today. We need to be equals, and we need “nation to nation”. I can't speak about what that looks like within the Inuit nations, the Métis nations or the first nations, in general. I can speak about what that would mean for Kebaowek. It's being equal with the Crown and its regulators, agencies and ministries when we talk about anything—the replacement of a hydro pole or the potential impacts of Bill C-53 on our rights and titles.