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.

[Cassidy Caron]

That's a very interesting question.

I know reconciliation means many different things to many different people. It means different things to different communities. It means different things to each one of our citizens. There are different processes that people consider to be part of reconciliation. It has, of course, been a buzzword of recent governments. It presents the opportunity to build a relationship and move forward in a good way.

Bill C-53 can be interpreted as reconciliation in action, since we are moving towards the recognition and implementation of Métis rights. That's something our communities, people, leaders and citizens have been working towards for generations.

Some would say it fits within the box of reconciliation. Others would say it is just the right thing to do. Whether or not to label it “reconciliation” is up to the individual. For first nations to decide they want to move away from using the term “reconciliation”.... It's up to them to do that as well. I wouldn't force anybody to use a word they are uncomfortable using.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Ms. Caron.

Ms. Caron, earlier, regarding Bill C‑53, you were talking about reconciliation. The first nations who oppose it are talking about broken reconciliation.

How do you interpret these words?

[Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you for this opportunity to address Bill C-53, which is a critical piece of legislation for the Métis.

I am a very proud Métis woman from Batoche and St. Louis, Saskatchewan. My ancestors fought in the 1885 resistance with a goal to preserve, protect and defend the Métis way of life. They were fighting for many of the same ideals the Métis nation continues to fight for today.

I am the president of the Métis National Council. The MNC comprises and receives its mandate from the democratically elected leadership of the governments of the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

For generations, the Métis nation has been organizing, advocating, negotiating and litigating to advance Métis rights. For the past 40 years, the Métis National Council has been at the forefront of this struggle, supporting Métis governments' fight for respect and rights recognition and working together to advance the Métis nation's cultural, social, economic and political interests.

Bill C-53 is the next step forward. It will help what RCAP called the “inexcusable governmental handling of Métis...rights over the years”.

We must all be clear: The promise of Métis self-government legislation is not new. To believe that it is new is yet another example of Canada's systemic amnesia. Time and time again, your governments, your processes, your special representatives, your royal commissions and your courts have recommended the negotiation of agreements that will legislatively recognize Métis self-government.

In 1982, your federation agreed to amend your Constitution to recognize and affirm the Métis nation's inherent rights in section 35, which includes the right to self-government. However, the failure of the late 1980s' constitutional conferences left section 35's promise to the Métis unfulfilled.

In 1992, Canada came close to formally recognizing Métis self-government through the Charlottetown accord, which included the Métis nation accord, which would have committed the federal and provincial governments to negotiate the implementation of Métis self-government. Also in 1992, Joe Clark, as minister for federal constitutional affairs, introduced a historic resolution in Parliament supporting the constitutional rights of the Métis. It passed unanimously. Through it, the House of Commons supported by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and practice, of the constitutional rights of the Métis people.

In 1996, your Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that the governments of Canada and of relevant provinces and territories be prepared to negotiate immediately with the appropriate Métis representative on the manner in which Métis self-government will be recognized. When successive Canadian governments failed to uphold their promises and their commitments, Métis turned their focus to the courts to prove that section 35 was not an empty promise to Métis.

In 2003—20 years ago—the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously confirmed in Powley that Métis are full-fledged rights bearers and that Métis rights are not derivative from first nation rights or less than Inuit or first nation rights. In Powley, Canada's highest court urged your governments to finally negotiate with the Métis and support section 35's constitutional guarantee to the Métis for the recognition and affirmation of our distinct rights.

In 2016, in Daniels v. Canada, your Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that Canada has a constitutional responsibility to advance relationships with Métis in the same way it does for first nations and Inuit.

There are even more examples where your processes have repeatedly led to the same recommendations calling for the full recognition of Métis rights. In 2016, Canada's ministerial special representative, Tom Isaac, released his report, which included many of these same recommendations. He reminded Canada of its duty to reconcile with Métis and adhere to the honour of the Crown, which demands full implementation of its obligations to all aboriginal peoples under section 35.

Even just this past June 2023, Canada committed in the UNDRIP action plan that, “Consistent with the commitment to co-develop approaches for the implementation of the right to self-determination, Canada will introduce federal legislation to implement the co-developed Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreements”.

Again, none of these conversations are new. Métis rights are not new. Métis self-government is not new. What is new is that Canada is finally taking action on what it has long promised.

For 40 years, the Métis National Council has been the national voice for our Métis governments to advance the interests and priorities of the section 35 rights-holding Métis citizens that they represent. These are the section 35 rights holders that Canada owes a duty to. Bill C-53 is a step to ensuring Canada's now 40-year-old promise of section 35 to the Métis is finally fulfilled.

Simply put, it's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 84th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting will be in a hybrid format. Therefore, there are no screenshots, photos or recordings allowed now that we're in session. I won't go over all the virtual stuff, because Michael and Anna hopefully know what we're doing now and have enough experience there.

Before we jump into the first session today, I'd like to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk. The deadline we established is November 29. That's coming up soon. Should you wish to propose amendments, please send the legislative counsel Alexandra Schorah your written instructions. She will ensure amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Today, we're continuing with our study of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

For our first panel, I'd like to welcome Cassidy Caron, president, Métis National Council. Joining President Caron is her counsel, Alexandria Winterburn.

We need the approval of the committee to have non-speaking supports join main witnesses at the table. I am going to ask for unanimous consent to have Ms. Winterburn join Ms. Caron at the table today. Because Ms. Winterburn is appearing as legal counsel, we can't direct questions to her. We can ask Ms. Caron technical legal questions. She may need to consult with Ms. Winterburn and report back, so it's a bit of an oddity in terms of how we're structured in the committee. That's how it goes.

[Steve Meawasige]

Thank you for those kind words.

I agree that what we need to do is sit down and talk people to people, not nation to nation. We need to sit down and talk about who we are and how everybody has been affected by this. We're affected by the opioid crisis. We're affected by water. We're affected by murdered and missing women.

Nobody draws the line on that. Nobody can say, “Oh, you're more affected than I am.” We're all affected the same. The Indian Act treated us all the same way.

It was you who decided about residential schools. It was you who decided everything that has brought us to this table today. It is you people who can now say, “Maybe we got it right this time. We passed Bill C-53 and now all three nations are working together.”

I think that's what it will take to make us work together, all three nations.

[Ronald Quintal]

What we said, within our correspondence with the federal government, was very clear. There needs to be conversation. There needs to be a conversation with Métis communities that are not a part of the Métis Nation of Alberta. There needs to be a conversation, so that protections are built in. There needs to be a conversation, so that when this bill comes to fruition, and when we reach this stage of the process, we would have had an ability to entertain that conversation.

We sent this multiple times and, again, the correspondence we sent was in opposition to the Métis Nation of Alberta, and strictly to that, because of the fact that we were under constant threat in terms of the treatment of our Métis communities through litigation.

With that said, what we said to the government is that this is so critical. Former minister Marc Miller had a conversation with us after the self-government agreements were signed in February. He gave us 15 minutes. I made it very clear to him that the process leading up to Bill C-53 was not just sloppy; it was lazy, because there was no work put in to make sure that we got this right.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. This is a very important matter that you have put before us. What you are saying is very similar, because the bill is very important.

I have a question for Ronald. You seem to be saying that, when the federal government consulted with you in preparing Bill C-53, what you said was ignored.

What did you say to the government that was ignored, and what needs to be heard now?

[Ronald Quintal]

The biggest issue for us in relation to this is that the Métis Nation of Alberta, under their constitution.... The Otipemisiwak Métis government held a referendum for that last year, and Bill C-53 will bring that constitution into force. They basically claim all Métis in Alberta.

Whether you're card-carrying or not, whether you are a member of their organization, they have essentially made it very clear that they will be usurping their authority to come into your community and to make very clear to government and industry that they are the sole representative.

With that said, we've dealt with this same behaviour. We've dealt with the same way of doing business with the Métis Nation of Alberta, without any rights recognition, without any legislation in place, and we've had to battle that throughout the courts for the last number of years, at least six years, with multiple legal cases. Every one that we've had, we've actually won.

What terrifies me is that, if this legislation is brought into effect, without limitations or amendments to be taken into serious consideration.... A Métis Nation of Alberta without rights recognition already cost my community half a million dollars in court costs. What would a Métis Nation of Alberta with rights recognition do? That's what scares me and terrifies the rest of the independent Métis communities in Alberta.

[Ronald Quintal, President, Fort McKay Métis Nation]

Thank you.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

My name is Ron Quintal. Since 2005 I have been president of the Fort McKay Métis Nation, the authorized government of the Fort McKay Métis community. I am also the elected chairperson of the Alberta Métis Federation, a collective of eight independent Métis communities.

My community is located in northern Alberta, between Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan. Our Métis community traces its history to the original forts established by French traders in the early 1800s amidst the Cree and Dene peoples who inhabited what is now northern Alberta. The present-day community can trace its lineage directly to the original families of Boucher, Piché and Tourangeau.

The Fort McKay Métis community has persisted together for over two centuries as a people. Our members continue to engage in harvesting as their ancestors did. Our members continue to look to each other for leadership and support. For this reason, our community began incorporating various bodies to formally represent our community, including the Red River Point Society, established in 1970; MNA Local 122, established in 1992; and MNA Local 63, established in 2002.

At the time our community incorporated the MNA locals, the Métis Nation of Alberta was acting as a Métis advocacy group. That all changed around 2016, when the MNA changed from working to assist Métis communities to asserting itself as a government over those communities. That may have been welcomed by some communities, but it was not welcomed by ours and so many other Métis communities throughout Alberta.

The MNA’s constitution, prompted by its negotiations with Canada, asserts that the MNA and its successor Métis government represents the Alberta Métis and all Métis communities. Fort McKay and other Métis communities have made it very clear that this assertion is not true. Despite that, Canada agreed to the same assertion being entrenched in its February 2023 agreement with the MNA, which states that the MNA is the government of the Métis nation in Alberta, defined as comprising both registered citizens and the Alberta Métis communities whose members are entitled to become its citizens. Imagine a foreign nation suggesting that it had the authority to speak on behalf of not only its own citizens but also Canadian communities simply because those community members could join that nation.

Bill C-53 now proposes to give Parliament’s blessing to this hostile and undemocratic takeover of Alberta Métis communities by formally recognizing, in clause 8 of the draft bill, the MNA as the “Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of” the Métis nation within Alberta.

I come to this committee on behalf of the Fort McKay Métis Nation to alert this House that the federal government does not properly understand the Métis of Alberta and that Bill C-53 is based on that flawed understanding that the MNA represents all Métis communities in Alberta, which it does not.

In its present form, Bill C-53 is a threat to Métis communities in Alberta and represents a massive step backward and not forward toward reconciliation. It threatens to unilaterally assimilate all Métis and Métis communities under an organization that lacks the consent of the governed.

If this committee declines to recommend rejecting this bill, the Fort McKay Métis nation asks that you instead amend the bill and expressly limit the recognition granted by Parliament in clause 8 such that it confines recognition to those Métis communities that have collectively and democratically chosen to be represented by the listed Métis governments.

To be clear, if this bill passes in its current form, we will fight it in court. We will not be governed by the MNA. This Parliament cannot legislate away our sovereignty. To attempt to do so is not only paternalistic. It also represents a huge blow toward the efforts of reconciliation.

We have had to fight the MNA for our identity and for our right to exist. We have had to use the courts to do so. We have won every court case, and all this while the MNA had no rights of recognition. I fear to see what will come if Canada passes this bill and the MNA has rights that are recognized. We will be there to stand our ground and to continue to defend our Métis communities.

We will defend this to the very end.

Hay hay.

[Tony Belcourt]

Thank you very much for the question.

The case of R. v. Powley is about whether or not the Métis person, or people in that case—Stephen and Roddy Powley—had a constitutional right to hunt and fish for food. The constitutional rights of first nations have gone through the Supreme Court various times, dealing with various questions concerning their rights.

The Supreme Court upheld a decision that the rights of the Métis of Sault Ste. Marie were not extinguished. As you know, the Constitution, section 35 says, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

Our rights were previously denied as existing by governments, so at the Supreme Court, in the Powley case, we proved that the rights of the Métis people at Sault Ste. Marie were not extinguished by the Robinson treaty.

Contrary to the desire of the first nations chiefs at the time to include the Métis people in that treaty, they were denied specifically. Because of that, the court decided that their rights to hunt and fish for food were not extinguished. Of course, that then leads to the question, if the right to hunt and fish for food wasn't extinguished, what about all the rest of the rights?

The rights of our people throughout the Métis homeland now, and with regard to the right to hunt and fish for food specifically, are very clear. They have that constitutional right. We now need to elaborate with governments on other rights that exist.

Our right of self-determination is another right that is understood and recognized widely. We need governments to have the tools to change their laws to accommodate our right for self-government. That's what Bill C-53 is all about, and that bill will specifically relate to the Métis nation in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

[Prof. Danette Starblanket]

Thank you.

I believe that, when we're looking at what's happened with colonization throughout our history, we've seen a real breakdown in those relationship. We've come to compete with one another within first nations communities, between Métis and first nations, and between Métis communities. This is part of our colonized face now. This is who we are. We have to work to decolonize those ways of thinking.

I think we have to understand that, upon contact, we started to create Métis societies. Métis culture came to be born. From there came communities. Métis folks were all over this place that we now occupy and today is called Canada. They did occupy these regions. They moved amongst these regions. As I've mentioned earlier, they were very involved with first nations people. As far as trappers and hunters, they were taking up those avocations as well, those ways of life, and surviving from them. I think that historical existence has to be understood and it has to be realized.

I think we also have to realize that we have come to break each other down. That's who we are today—tearing each other apart. Unfortunately, that's where we're at. We have to heal that. We have to move towards changing that. I hope that's where we're at.

There are people who will put those arguments against Bill C‑53 forward, but I think we have to look at that history and those Supreme Court decisions that have been made and the positions of the Métis people. Their voices and their oral history are really important. I think that all has to be taken into account.

As far as talking about recognition—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to be brief. I want to spare the interpreters. That is why I do not want to speak too quickly.

You mentioned earlier that you would like the committee to see clearly what is coming out of the arguments being made against Bill C‑53. I would have liked to hear your comments on these arguments and what you want the committee to see in these arguments.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses who are here with us today.

I know that the topic we are studying right now is tough. As one of my colleagues just said, this is an historic moment, but we are facing some challenges.

I will start with you, Mr. Belcourt.

Earlier, you mentioned something. You said that you wish the committee could see more clearly what is coming out of the arguments against Bill C‑53. I am paraphrasing what you said, but you get the idea.

I would have liked to hear more before your comments about these arguments, even though some have already been raised. I would also like you to tell us what committee members should be seeing in these arguments.

[Tony Belcourt, As an Individual]

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

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following text:]

Makwa ga ni ga nich nit si ka sin.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

I am The Bear That Leads.

[Witness spoke in Plains Cree and provided the following text:]

Manitou sakhaigan ochi niya kyate.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Spirit Lake is where I am from.

[English]

I'm Tony Belcourt. My spirit name is The Bear That Leads. It's a name that was given to me by former Ontario regional chief Charles Fox.

I'm from the Métis community of Lac Ste. Anne, Alberta. I have been involved as an indigenous advocate and leader for nearly 55 years: as a Métis leader in Alberta in the sixties, as president of the Native Council of Canada in the seventies and as founding president of the Métis Nation of Ontario from 1994 to 2008. I was a member of the board of governors of the Métis National Council for 15 years and a Métis nation ambassador to the United Nations and the OAS for 10 years.

I am carried by the pipe.

Maternal ancestors in my community are Cree and Sekanais women. They are the grandmothers who gave us our language and taught us our medicines, values, cultures and traditions. My paternal ancestors are French and Mohawk. In other communities of our homeland, they include the Scots and the English. In Métis communities in other parts of the Métis homeland, our maternal ancestors include the Saulteaux, Dene and Anishinabe.

The blood of our ancestors in much of our homelands is the same as that of our first nations cousins. In fact, the Cree in my area called us âpihtawikosisân, which means “Cree half-cousins”.

The progeny of our ancestors formed the origins of our communities long before so-called outside control. These are Métis ancestors, although we were not always called Métis. In my case, we were known as Otipemisiwak, or “the people who own themselves”. At Lac Ste. Anne, we spoke of ourselves as Nehiyawak, which simply means “the people” in Cree.

In St. Laurent, Manitoba, the people there referred to themselves as Li Michif. The Anishinabek referred to the Métis in their communities as Apti Nishinabek. Governments referred to us as “half-breeds”.

I have heard opposition to Bill C-53 by those who are saying there are no Métis communities in Ontario and they don't know of any.

I would like to point out that we have a history of relationships with Ontario first nations, which includes a protocol with the Chiefs of Ontario. The purpose of this protocol was to affirm the mutual respect, recognition and support of our respective rights, interests and aspirations; to facilitate government-to-government relationships; and to establish a political process to strengthen the relationship between Ontario first nations and the Métis nation within Ontario.

We also entered into a nation-to-nation relationship with the Anishinabek Nation. It was forged in a traditional way through a sacred ceremony and an assembly of the Anishinabek Nation at Kettle and Stony Point First Nation in 2005. We both brought our songs to the drum. We brought our pipes for ceremony. We had a feast and we danced.

During that time, the Anishinabek Nation and the Métis nation worked out a harvesting accord to recognize and respect each other as nations, and agreed to conduct all discussions on the basis of respect and equality. This accord recognized the shared traditional territory and the aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather in the shared territory where our people have kinship ties.

I have also heard that if Bill C-53 is passed, it will be a detriment to first nations economically. This is a refrain I heard 52 years ago, when I first met with George Manuel, who was then the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. It took some time for me to get a meeting with him, and when I did, he said his chiefs didn't want him to meet with me and the government was warning him not to meet with me. They were saying there was only a loaf of bread available, and if the Métis were recognized, “Well, George, half of that loaf of bread would have to be given to them.” I said, “George, Ottawa is not a loaf of bread. Ottawa is a bakery.”

I told George we had no interest in the funds that were set aside for him through Indian Affairs. There wasn't enough for him and there was nothing for us. I told him we needed to work together to get funds for housing, for health care and for economic development. We did just that.

I hope this committee will see through the arguments that have been brought forward to deny the recognition of Métis rights in Canada and pass Bill C-53, so our Métis' and first nations' governments can begin to rebuild that nation-to-nation relationship for the benefit of all indigenous people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you. I have no further questions.

I just want to thank all of you for clarifying your opinions and your thoughts on Bill C-53. Thank you very much.