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.

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

I just want to build on this conversation as well, more for our counterparts around the table who may be new to this developing situation.

I bring to the attention of Mr. Desjarlais that if he remembers back during the discussions on Bill C-53, the Métis self-governing act we were discussing just before Christmas and into January, the agreement at that time was that for the supplementary estimates (B), which is months ago now, if we got Bill C-53 through committee, at that point the ministers would gladly appear to answer questions of the committee.

We have had no ministers to date. We were told just a few weeks ago that we're still waiting on a date that works in their schedules.

I'm just painting the picture for everybody in this room that if we take it to the next step of voting on a particular motion, this is an ongoing problem—not just here, but at INAN—in a department that is swelling with bureaucracy, but yet the results are going down the drain. There are indigenous lives at stake here. Housing has horrible conditions. Again, there are ongoing challenges with drinking water. People don't have drinking water that's safe. There's Jordan's principle and the endless concerns about that.

I could go on and on, but as my friend from the Bloc said, if there's a path forward to have a motion, let's get to a vote. I just wanted to inform the committee or those who might not be aware of what's going on at the INAN committee that there are serious issues with getting Minister Hajdu to appear.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise and speak to Bill C-29.

This flawed bill was the government's attempt, over nine years in office, to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 53 through 56. Indeed, since 2015, the Liberal government, for all its rhetoric on reconciliation, continues to ignore indigenous voices. It breaks promises and perpetuates the archaic, broken and paternalistic “Ottawa knows best” approach to indigenous issues.

We do not have to look very far to see this.

The Chiefs of Ontario, which represents more than 130 first nations in the province, filed for a judicial review because this Liberal coalition government refuses to listen to indigenous communities and axe the carbon tax. The first nations argue that the imposition of the price on carbon is leaving their communities worse off than others in Canada and breaching the principles of true reconciliation.

Abram Benedict, the Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne said, “People feel that their rights are being violated.” The chiefs want the federal government to redevelop the policy with their communities by either exempting first nations people from the price on carbon or allowing them to recoup all the costs associated with the system.

Many first nations members cannot benefit from the rebates delivered under the pricing mechanism, because the payments are linked to income taxes, which are not collected from individuals working on reserves. The leadership also argues that the price on carbon places a burden on their constitutionally protected rights to hunt, harvest or fish on their traditional territory because of the added fuel costs for all-terrain vehicles, trucks, boats and snowmobiles.

Furthermore, with respect to the long-anticipated national loan guarantee program, the Liberal government has remained silent on the details. Indigenous leaders are very concerned that oil and gas will not be included, sidelining over $300 billion in projects over the next decade and $40 billion in LNG projects ready to go next year. Indigenous leaders are asking for details, but this government refuses to engage with them and give them the details they actually need to plan.

This is not reconciliation. This is alienation.

This leads me to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. Speaking previously, I made it clear that it was important to use a consensus-building approach to improve this piece of legislation. Bill C-29 deserved, in its formation, a responsible look at areas where it needed improvement.

At second reading I pointed out that Bill C-29's foundation was cracked and would need some care and attention at committee if the government hopes to provide a workable council that is respected by all leaders, all communities and all organizations across Canada. I wanted to make sure that all five indigenous national organizations were represented, not just the three that were in the original bill, notably the Native Women's Association of Canada, NWAC, and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, both of which were ignored.

My colleague, the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, added that he wanted the following addressed: The transparency and independence in the selection process of the board of directors; words that were purposely vague to avoid accountability; the lack of any measurable outcomes; the fact that it took over four years to bring the bill to the House in the first place; and, of course, lastly, that the Prime Minister should be the one responding to the council's annual report, as was the direction in the call to action 56.

In 2015 the Prime Minister claimed that building a good relationship with indigenous peoples would be the government's top priority. I am not sure what the word “priority” means to the Liberal Prime Minister, but to me it does not mean tabling any indigenous-related legislation at the last possible minute. Bill C-38 was introduced December 14, 2022, the last sitting day of a House sitting session. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the last day of a House sitting session. Bill C-29, of course, was introduced June 22, 2022, which was the last day of a session. I do not know about my colleagues, but the trend certainly does not scream “priority” to me. Indigenous people deserve more than a last-minute Liberal effort.

Need I say that, while the Prime Minister would love to take credit for being the first to advance reconciliation, it was actually the previous Conservative government that finally issued a formal apology on behalf of Canada to all indigenous people across the country? Actions speak louder than words, which is why I remind the House that 17 of the 19 amendments Conservatives put forward were passed at committee. It is the job of the official opposition to improve legislation where possible and to make it representative of all voices, and that is exactly what members on this side of the House did. Unfortunately, there was one amendment we proposed that was disproportionately voted down by the other parties, and that is what I would like to discuss for a few minutes.

One of the most glaring issues with Bill C-29 is the lack of representation on the national council for reconciliation. The bill sets aside three seats for the AFN, ITK and the MNC, three national organizations that the Liberal government deals with almost exclusively when it comes to indigenous issues across the country. It chose to ignore the other two major organizations, NWAC and CAP.

At committee, Conservatives got a motion passed to have both organizations recognized in the same manner as the AFN, ITK and the MNC, yet when the bill was reported back to the House, the Liberal-NDP coalition chose to deliberately vote against the will of its members on committee and remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from the bill. The Liberal-NDP coalition chose to ignore the voices of large swaths of urban and poor people. CAP represents over 800,000 off-reserve indigenous voices, yet it has no voice when it comes to reconciliation. It has been alienated by the government and its supporters.

The Conservative senators in the other place tried hard to rectify this, but again the Prime Minister made sure his Liberal senators defeated that amendment. I often hear in meetings with indigenous leaders about the importance of economic reconciliation, not just to address their own issues with their own resources but also to return a sense of self-sufficiency and honour to a people who have had it stripped away by the paternalistic, archaic and irreparably broken Indian Act.

Conservatives also put forward an amendment to add a seat on the board of directors for someone from an indigenous organization that is focused on economic reconciliation. With many options available from a whole list of organizations that are all doing great work in this sphere, finding a well-established organization that has done historic work in creating economic opportunity for indigenous people would not have been a barrier. The lack of support for this amendment, it should be pointed out, came at the expense of not listening to multiple witnesses who clearly voiced their approval for the inclusion of an economic lens being a part of this board. To ignore these voices discredits the very process of reconciliation.

As the shadow minister for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, I hear regularly from indigenous groups and leaders across the country how important economic development and prosperity are to reconciliation. Having members with fiscal expertise on a commission directly focused on advancing reconciliation seems like a key component to ensuring an economic lens is at the forefront of their work.

Instead, obstruction comes from the Liberal-NDP coalition, which looks down upon Conservatives who encourage economic reconciliation. We need to establish an economic national dialogue with indigenous leadership and organizations to remove the bureaucratic barriers to economic prosperity that exist at Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with a goal of phasing out these government bureaucracies altogether.

Conservatives are moving in this direction, with the recent announcement of the grassroots, indigenous-led first nations resource charge. Common-sense Conservatives are ready to dismantle the “Ottawa knows best” archaic and paternalistic way of doing things. For hundreds of years, first nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa.

The Indian Act hands over all reserve lands and money to the federal government. This means that first nations must go to Ottawa to ask for the tax revenues collected from resource projects on their lands. This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists, not first nations. The direct results of this “Ottawa knows best” approach have been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, and unsafe drinking water.

The first nations resource charge is a signal to indigenous peoples that the Conservatives recognize the need to correct the fiscal imbalance between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. This would ensure that they receive stable, annual fiscal benefits and to advance reconciliation by promoting first nations self-determination and economic development.

We tried to do this with Bill C-29 as well, yet the Liberals were not interested in hearing the voices of off-reserve indigenous peoples or even considering economic reconciliation on a national committee tasked with reconciliation.

Conservatives continue to observe Liberal and NDP MPs aggressively challenging indigenous leaders who appear as witnesses at the indigenous and northern affairs committee, advocating for economic reconciliation. Unfortunately, I find myself asking why. It seems there is an aversion to even having a discussion on economic reconciliation. This tells me that something does not add up.

What is it about indigenous peoples being the creators of their own destiny that Liberal MPs dislike? What is it about empowering the creation of healthy, strong and vibrant communities through prosperity that they do not like? What is it about using own-source revenue from true partnerships to solve long-standing social issues that they dislike? What is it about leaving behind the destructive grip of poverty to offer hope and opportunity to future generations that they dislike? Why will the Liberal government not listen to what indigenous people are trying to tell them? Sadly, the answer is that they are more concerned with political power and control.

By imposing their own views, rather than listening to indigenous voices, they create the same environment that indigenous peoples have lived under for far too long in this country. One group's world views and political opinions are forced upon another group.

This past week, on many different occasions, I heard the Minister of Indigenous Services claim that her department is focused on co-development with first nations. The Prime Minister even stood in this House and used the term “co-develop” as well.

This sounds like another Liberal buzzword used to create the illusion of equal partnership between indigenous leaders and Canada. In fact, in response to the use of the term, first nations leaders have pushed back and said that they are not sure who the Liberal government is co-developing with, because it is sure not them.

We heard from the national chief, Chief Elmer St. Pierre, of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples that “Reconciliation must start with inclusion”. He added, “Despite the existence of five National Indigenous Organizations, the Liberal Government seems to be engaging in partisan politics by excluding CAP and the voices of urban Indigenous peoples.”

“The government's attempt to divide and conquer by selectively recognizing certain indigenous groups is deeply concerning,” stated Kim Beaudin, CAP national vice-chief. He went on: “Reconciliation cannot be confined to reserves alone, as the majority of Indigenous peoples now reside in urban and rural areas, demanding their voices to be heard.”

What an embarrassing indictment of the Liberal government this is. To make matters worse, one of the three original council members, the ITK, an organization that represents Inuit peoples, has withdrawn its support of Bill C-29. The ITK's president, Natan Obed, fears that the reconciliation body created by the bill could undermine ongoing Inuit work to build a direct relationship with the federal government and advance Inuit rights and interests. He says that the bill, as it stands, also does little to make the federal government accountable for fulfilling its obligations on reconciliation.

On this issue of “co-development”, which the Liberals insist is how they do business, President Obed said: “It has been debatable on the Inuit side on whether or not we would describe how we've interacted with the federal government as co-developed.... These terms are largely subjective and we wanted to make them more clear.”

Chief St. Pierre was much less forgiving, saying, “This extraordinary move by the Liberals is a slap in the face to thousands of survivors who live off-reserve.... For seven years now, the Liberals have trumpeted the importance of reconciliation, but this exclusion reveals their true colours.”

It is time to fundamentally change the approach. Much of my work on this file was shared by my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. In fact, it was that member who shepherded Bill C-29 through the House, and I wanted to take a moment to thank him for his work on this file.

Out of respect for his work, I would like to share a story from his riding, which really highlights the changes that are already happening on the ground in northern Saskatchewan. Having spent time with Pelican Lake First Nation's Chief Peter Bill, RCMP and two of Pelican Lake's own community safety officers, the member asked how the newly established community safety officer program was going. Chief Bill replied that the community now has six full-time employees and its own fully equipped vehicles, and it is in the process of training more officers. The RCMP also explained how helpful the program had been in the overall safety of the community.

How did Pelican Lake First Nation pay for this community service officer program? In fact, it was their own-source revenue, which was generated from their forestry business. They invested the profits to assist the overall health of the community, instead of waiting around for years while the government and the bureaucrats plan; meet; make frameworks, charts and graphs; do benefit assessments and feasibility studies; or use the signing of MOUs for photo ops.

Later that day, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was at Flying Dust First Nation to participate in a walk of solidarity with residential school survivors. On that walk, he saw the hockey rink that was built a few years ago and, beside it, the newly built 6,000-square-foot sporting goods store and facility called Snipe and Celly. If one looks in the other direction, one finds the new Petro-Canada gas station located right on the highway. For the member, it was a stark reminder of what the MLTC Cree vice-chief, Richard Derocher, had mentioned to him earlier that day, when he spoke positively on reconciliation. He shared that his wish was that, one day, when people were either visiting or driving through the area, they would not be able to recognize when they were leaving Flying Dust First Nation and entering Meadow Lake.

Generating prosperity through economic development works. It is a shame that this was not recognized by the government. The existing model of federal public servants determining who is and who is not ready for self-governance needs to change. Reconciliation must be centred on the future of indigenous peoples, not what is in the best interest of the Liberal government. By modernizing our approach to indigenous partnerships, we will modernize Canada and usher in a new age of economic prosperity and equality of opportunity.

Conservatives promote and believe in economic reconciliation. It is the solution to eradicating poverty and, with it, the social ills that poverty creates. With control put back in their hands, indigenous peoples can begin to manage prosperity instead of poverty and take concrete steps toward healing through self-determination.

Conservatives support off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we have demonstrated this publicly with our support of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples' inclusion on the national council for reconciliation. The Liberals and their NDP coalition partners effectively silenced the voices of the 800,000 off-reserve and non-status indigenous peoples when they voted against amendments that would have included CAP on the council. Let the record show that it was the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who stood against the addition of economic reconciliation to the national council, while Conservatives recognized the importance of consultation and of hearing from as many diverse indigenous voices as possible.

To conclude, I am proud of the work our Conservative team did in making Bill C-29 a better version than what originally came to the House.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in relation to Bill C-53, 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. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I also would like to thank all of our witnesses and particularly the representatives from the Métis organizations in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, and the national Métis representative, for their persistence in helping us get through this much-needed legislation at committee stage.

I wish the House all the best in seeing this through to the finish line and on completion through royal assent.

First Nations Clean Water Act

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with deep humility and a great sense of responsibility that I take up the torch today for indigenous relations and the development of the north and its regions within the Bloc Québécois.

First, I would like to salute my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for her outstanding dedication and hard work on behalf of the indigenous nations of Quebec and Canada over the years.

I am committed to working closely with indigenous communities in the years to come and making progress in strengthening their rights and autonomy while fostering equitable nation-to-nation relations, and I am committed to following in the footsteps of my colleague from Manicouagan.

Before turning to the bill at hand, I also want to give a shout-out to the participants of the second edition of the First Nations Expedition, who are, as we speak, about to set off from Témiscaming or Kebaowek. The participants will cover a total of 3,250 kilometres by snowmobile on their way to Wendake, passing through Mashteuiatsh, Rouyn‑Noranda, where they stopped the day before yesterday, Maniwaki, Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, and many other places.

I went to Témiscaming yesterday to meet up with them. Politicians from Témiscamingue of all stripes, so to speak, came out to salute the courage of the participants in this second edition. Participants were selected based on their heightened awareness of the indigenous causes supported by the expedition, as well as their thirst and curiosity to learn more about indigenous nations.

I want draw attention to the two men who came up with the idea. The first is Christian Flamand, an Atikamekw man who spoke passionately yesterday about his commitment and the depth of his convictions. The second is Derek Jeremy Einish, a Naskapi man. Both are motivated by the principles of reconciliation, friendship, respect, solidarity and courage.

The aim of the expedition is to pay tribute to children who attended residential schools, missing and murdered indigenous women, Joyce Echaquan, whose name has come up several times, and children who were taken from their families at birth.

To segue into my thoughts on the bill, I will start by saying hello to a representative of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Billy Shecanapish. We met yesterday and he told me that he has spent his life advocating for water and working with water in indigenous communities. I think that is the perfect segue. I want to say hello to Billy and all those participating in the First Nations Expedition.

For indigenous communities, water is not just about staying hydrated, nor is it simply a commodity or resource. Water is considered sacred, because it is a source of life, knowledge and rights. Water is considered a living entity, with a spirit of its own. Human beings have a responsibility to protect and care for this vital resource from mother earth. In short, water is a symbol of indigenous sovereignty.

That is why I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. After first reading of this bill, I think it is too soon to give my opinion on it, since the first nations are not all in agreement. We still have a lot of questions about the consultations that were held with first nations and about many of the bill's provisions.

When all of that is put together, it may not have the original intended effect. By way of observation, the notion of co-development, when the government and its main partners are not in agreement, says a lot about the current process. With all due respect, this also happened with Bill C-53, so perhaps the government needs to review the mechanism it uses for consulting with first nations in order to make it truly inclusive and have a real dialogue.

On the surface, Bill C‑61 may appear to be a long-awaited response to the ongoing equality issues related to access to water for indigenous people in Quebec and Canada, but the devil is in the details.

I want to talk about the basics of the right to drinking water. Access to a safe, clean source of drinking water is fundamental to life. Unfortunately, many first nations communities across the country face significant barriers to accessing safe drinking water. Since 1977, the government has been promising to provide reserves with water and sanitation services comparable to those available in the majority of similar non-indigenous communities. However, these promises have often gone unfulfilled.

First nations continue to endure a disproportionate share of the consequences of poor water management, water insecurity and lack of access to good quality drinking water, a situation that would be considered intolerable for anyone living off the reserves. For most people living in a G7 nation, it would be frankly unthinkable.

The consequences of water insecurity require no explanation. However, since we are still here debating a bill on water, in the House, in 2024, I will nonetheless speak to the link between water insecurity and the high rate of suicide in many indigenous communities. In recent years, numerous studies have shown that water insecurity and the loss of traditional water-related practices contribute to feelings of anxiety, depression and loss of cultural identity. These factors, in turn, can significantly affect the risk of suicide. In short, access to safe, clean drinking water is essential not only for the physical health of indigenous nations, but for their mental health and cultural vitality as well.

One of the clearest examples of this chronic inequality is the never-ending drinking water advisories on first nations reserves. Despite Canada's fiduciary commitments to provide potable water to first nations, its repeated promises to eliminate these advisories and its international obligations recognizing potable water and clean water as a human right, these advisories have been in place for decades.

It is odd that Canada, a country where water is abundant and easily accessible, is still unable to offer adequate infrastructure for drinking water access and waste water management. Unlike developing countries, Canada is not dealing with a water shortage, seeing as it possesses 20% of the world's freshwater reserves. It is not deficient in resources or dealing with the instability of an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The current situation should be blamed on successive Canadian governments and their chronic negligence toward first nations. The federal government's lack of interest in first nations is obvious when we look at the limiting and discriminatory situation imposed on these communities, leaving them stuck with poor sanitary conditions.

Questions remain. Given these realities, Bill C-61 represents a first step in the right direction.

This enactment affirms that the inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, includes the jurisdiction of First Nations in relation to water.... It sets out principles, such as substantive equality, to guide the provision for First Nations of clean and safe drinking water and the effective treatment and disposal of wastewater on First Nation lands. It provides for minimum standards for water quality and quantity and wastewater effluent. It also provides pathways to facilitate source water protection.

However, as I mentioned earlier, it has not gone unnoticed that we are debating legislation in 2024 to give communities decent access to clean drinking water and proper infrastructure. This bill may seem like a step in the right direction, but it is simply not good enough.

Let us start with the fact that the government's main partners on this bill, the first nations themselves, disagree with the statement made by the Minister of Indigenous Services that the legislation she was working on was the closest the federal government had come to co-developing law with first nations.

The lack of consultation could explain why the bill seems to view free, prior and informed consent, as defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a mere suggestion or guiding principle rather than a strict requirement applicable to all aspects of the bill.

How can first nations trust that the government will consult them on the provisions of this bill, if the government cannot even consult them when the bill is first drafted?

This bill does confirm that water on, in and under first nation lands is part of first nation lands, providing a strong bulwark against provincial land claims. Subclause 6(1) of Bill C‑61 explicitly recognizes that first nations have an “inherent right to self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” with respect to “water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on, in and under First Nations lands.”

The terminology in this section, which refers to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly establishes that first nations' right to self-government over water on reserve lands constitutes recognition of a constitutionally protected right, not simply authority conferred by law. The fact that the words “water” and “source water” are added means that first nations have complete control over water of any kind on their reserve lands.

The protection of source water is crucial to ensuring that first nations have access to quality drinking water, which supports economic development and helps preserve indigenous rights and cultural practices. Although the bill talks about protecting source water, it does not lay out any specific requirements for protecting it.

On the contrary, both the control and protection of source water remain vulnerable in the provincial and federal agreements required by paragraph 6(1)(b). This does not provide adequate authority to first nations for protecting water sources. First nations will have limited jurisdiction over source water, given that this jurisdiction depends on the agreement between the federal government and the respective provincial or territorial government for coordinating the enforcement of first nations legislation. This is problematic, because water protection varies considerably from one province to another. Also, this bill could always serve as a way for the federal government to shirk its responsibilities to its indigenous partners. Giving first nations considerable power perpetuates concerns about a somewhat disengaged federal government.

Bill C‑61 does not even recognize the basic human right to clean drinking water. Meanwhile, the bill cites the principle of substantive equality in paragraph 5(2)(a) which states that “the distinct needs of First Nations for reliable access to water services must be addressed in a way that respects First Nations rights and their access must be comparable to that in non-Indigenous communities”. Substantive equality is not, in itself, a right to good-quality drinking water. In fact, Canada's refusal to recognize the right to safe drinking water goes against its stated commitment in favour of the right to safe drinking water as a fundamental right within the United Nations.

I want to talk about Kitcisakik, which is located in the riding of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I would like to talk about a community in my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This indigenous community has been without running water and electricity for years now. Thanks to Quebec's recent commitment, the community will finally be connected to the power grid over the next three years. Unfortunately, the community of Kitcisakik will remain without access to water. Because the water table is too high, it is impossible to dig on site and build the necessary infrastructure, making access to running water impossible. Only the communal showers and the band office have access to this precious blue gold.

Moreover, Kitcisakik has dreamed for the past 30 years of building its new village, Wanaki, which means “land of peace” in the indigenous language. In this way, it could finally acquire modern facilities and infrastructure. This brings me to a key aspect of this issue. To develop water management infrastructure requires considerable, recurring and predictable funding. Historically, this has never been the case. From 2015 to 2018, $146 million was allocated annually to fund this type of infrastructure. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2017, it would have taken $361 million a year to fund and maintain first nations' drinking water and waste-water systems. The government covered only 40% of the estimated needs.

Once again, I will talk about my region to demonstrate the impact. Maintenance and construction costs are much higher in the regions, and that forces communities to make heart-wrenching decisions. In February 2021, the Abitibiwinni nation on the Pikogan reserve near Amos reported that it was finding it difficult to allocate the funds needed to maintain and run its water and waste-water systems. It is difficult for a community to have to choose between maintaining its infrastructure, water and waste-water systems and roads, and fostering economic and social development when the envelopes are simply not there. We should keep in mind that, in remote regions, the cost of every repair is higher because of the distances involved, the labour shortage and the competition from mining companies in the construction sector.

From reading the bill, we get the impression it seeks to tackle inadequate funding. However, the language used is superficial, requiring only that the government provide “funding that, as a minimum, meets the commitment expenditures” set out in the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Settlement Agreement.

The funding provisions in the bill simply do not go far enough to guarantee sufficient funding for first nations. According to clause 26 of this bill, the Government of Canada is content to make “best efforts” to provide adequate funding for water services and to offset the actual costs to first nations of water and sanitation services.

That is a gateway to inaction. The term “best efforts” allows the government to shirk its responsibility to provide First Nations with real access to clean, safe drinking water.

If the minister can simply claim to have done their best to make sure a community has access to water, and the community still does not have access to drinking water, that is legal under the terms proposed by this piece of legislation. That is unacceptable. It is a shirking of responsibility toward our indigenous constituents, and we cannot tolerate such negligence.

I will remind members that the investigation conducted by the Institute for Investigative Journalism at Concordia University revealed that Indigenous Services Canada funded only 33% of the needs of the community of Kebaowek, located in my riding, while the federal government should have contributed 80%. No matter the infrastructure, if the federal government does not do its part, it is unrealistic to think that first nations will be able to meet expectations.

The drinking water problem is also affecting non-indigenous communities. Take, for example, the municipality of Laverlochère-Angliers in the Témiscamingue region. Its inhabitants do not have access to drinking water because it is just too expensive for a community of about 300.

Some 30% of the population of Abitibi—Témiscamingue gets its water from private wells. A study conducted by the Direction régionale de santé publique showed the presence of arsenic in the private wells. It validated the hypothesis that the contaminated wells were associated with a certain type of rock often found near gold deposits. Some of the private wells were dug in gold deposits, so their water contains arsenic. It is important for both indigenous and non-indigenous communities to understand the geology of our region so as to reduce the risk of contamination.

It is also important to remember that, according to a survey conducted by the Abitibi—Témiscamingue public health directorate, four out of five households had not cleaned or disinfected their wells in the past five years.

This is another important point that needs to be included in this bill. How can we fund prevention if indigenous communities opt to dig their own wells? These are important things to think about.

In conclusion, I would say that we are at a crucial point in time and that we must seriously consider the future of access to drinking water in Quebec and Canadian indigenous communities. Although imperfect, Bill C-61 is an attempt to do something about the persistent inequalities experienced by indigenous peoples when it comes to access to drinking water.

However, despite its good intentions, it fails to address basic concerns. The issue of a real and meaningful consultation of first nations is still up in the air, casting a shadow on the legitimacy of this legislative measure. In addition, the funding provisions fail to guarantee sufficient resources to adequately meet the needs of indigenous communities.

We cannot overlook how unacceptable it is that, in 2024, we still have to stand here and talk about the need to ensure access to clean drinking water and decent infrastructure. This highlights the government's ongoing failure to deliver on its commitments to indigenous nations.

As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that every citizen has equitable access to an essential part of life, namely drinking water. Bill C-61 is an opportunity to improve the situation, but it needs to be strengthened and adjusted to truly meet the needs, demands and rights of first nations.

We must take urgent action and firmly resolve to put an end to this unacceptable situation. Access to clean, safe drinking water is a basic human right, and we must not tolerate any further delay in making that a reality for everyone. The House's commitment to reconciliation and to indigenous peoples requires that we take bold action to ensure that every indigenous and non-indigenous community has a future and can thrive with dignity and fairness.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, for her work with first nations and Métis communities in her riding. She is a tremendous champion for those voices, and I know those communities appreciate all her knowledge and willingness to continue to learn on this file. It is not a file that should be taken lightly. I know she takes it very seriously and really digs in, and I appreciate that.

She could not be more bang on with her comment. The government, like with many other pieces of legislation, waited until the last second to bring this in. The legislation, as she mentioned, was promised for six months and counting. Bill C-53, the Métis self-government legislation, was brought in during the dying seconds of the sitting before we adjourned in June. We could even go back to the Whitecap Dakota treaty, which was also brought in during the dying days.

Again, it is a growing concern. On the one hand, the government says that the indigenous file is the most important relationship. However, on the other hand, it drops these pieces of legislation at the last second or in the dying days of Parliament.

First nations communities deserve more than that. We should be promoting them front and centre. Unfortunately the government says one thing and does the other.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this piece of legislation, Bill C-61, is an important step forward and something that has support from organizations such as the AFN. Others do have some questions they would like asked, and we will get to that in the committee process.

As for the actual time schedule, it is the government that controls the agenda in the House. We are at its mercy. It is really up to its members and their priorities. I notice something with other pieces of legislation, such as the indigenous-led legislation we just finished up in committee today, Bill C-53. That legislation, on self-governance concerning Métis in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, was promised for months and brought in at the dying days of the session before the break in June.

This piece of legislation, Bill C-61, was again promised for months. I do not know what the delay was on the government's side. I do not know what it was. I believe the delay has been over six months, when we could have been discussing this or even bringing it to committee, and perhaps even passing it at third reading. Again, it is the government putting up these roadblocks. We would like to see what timetable it has in mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. At this point, now that we've concluded Bill C-53, the next business we have is the review of version one of the education study. When we finish version one, then we have the land restitution study draft that we need to go through.

We don't have any passed motions yet for whatever the next study would be, so if this motion passes, I would look to the committee on timing as to whether we want to interrupt the review of either of those two reports. Then, as we get into the land restitution study, that's where I was going to bring up committee business to have us look at motions. The Conservatives are next, for their study, and then we have the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals. We'll move through that rotation of getting topics sorted out, but I wasn't going to have that discussion until we got into the land restitution report, because we have lots of work to keep us going. There are also a couple of pieces of legislation in the House that could be coming to us.

Should this motion pass, I would look to the committee on timing and when the committee would want to have that motion implemented.

Hopefully, that answers your question, Ms. Idlout. Okay. Thank you.

Next I have Mr. Battiste.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Zimmer, can I interrupt just for a second? I apologize for this.

I should have offered to our officials that if they'd like to leave the table, we're beyond Bill C-53 now, so I don't want to hold them here for this.

Please feel free to make your exit. If you want to stay, you're more than welcome to. You're like family here. If you want to go, I will make you that offer.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With that, we have concluded our review of Bill C-53.

Thank you to each of the members and to those who have substituted.

Thank you to our officials. As did Mr. Battiste, I'd like to thank all the members of the Métis organizations, the Métis nations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, for their dedication and input into this very important piece of legislation.

Colleagues, I have two things before we adjourn. Mr. Zimmer would like to speak, and then I want to quickly go to the travel discussion.

Mr. Zimmer, the floor is yours.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you. I really appreciate your repeating that and helping to clarify.

I think that what I do need to say is that treaty-making was never a fair process for first nations. First nations were never heard in the same way we're hearing these three Métis nations in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In that sense, Bill C-53 is unprecedented, as first nations during their negotiations did not have the same weight given to their voice by the federal government. When we're hearing about treaties never really being implemented the way they were intended to be, it has been a concern for over 150 years, so when it came to this bill and the concepts of treaty and self-government for Métis, it naturally flowed to the concerns and issues of first nations and other Métis over the last 150 years.

I think that's why this scrutiny was so important, so that when we're seeking fairness, we're seeking fairness for all indigenous peoples and for those first nations that were not given the same opportunities, through words like what you said, Michael—that the relationship with first nations is evolving and that treaties need space to evolve. It opens the doors for first nations to come back to you to make sure that treaties are evolving. When we're talking about treaties that, for example, might have been silent on water, they still need to be allowed to discuss water.

We know, for example, that there have been years of concerns about rights not being respected because of treaties towards indigenous peoples. This conversation helps to open the doors to first nations that have not been treated with equity, to first nations and other Métis who have not been given the same opportunities that we've heard of today.

Having said that and having heard your explanation about what this limits for future treaty-making, those limits existed for first nations, but I will still oppose.... I've changed my position on this provision. I will oppose this amendment because of what we've heard, because of what we need to do to uplift all indigenous peoples.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. I have you on the list.

First, I was asked for the chair's position or ruling on this. After a discussion with our legislative team, I'll give you, just briefly, the ruling on why this is deemed to be in order, as opposed to out of order.

The understanding is that CPC-5.01 reiterates the fact that Bill C-53 does not grant Métis governments and the Government of Canada the ability to enter into treaties regarding any rights or claims that pertain to land or resources. Procedurally, this is interpreted as a limitation rather than an expansion on the scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is admissible. If it were to be an expansion, it would not be admissible, but because it's a restriction, it is admissible. That's why it's on the table before us for discussion.

With that, I have Ms. Idlout, Mr. McLeod and then Mr. Schmale on my speaking list.

Ms. Idlout, I go to you first.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we meet on the unceded and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Colleagues, before we get into the continuation of the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-53 today, I'm going to flag for us that the call is out for upcoming travel for committees. The travel period will be April to June, and our deadline for submission is February 16. I'm not going to take any time on that today, but I'm just planting the idea that the deadline is coming up. Should we finish early today, I may come back to it before we adjourn to see if anybody has anything they'd like to put forward for our clerk and the logistics team to cost out, which we could submit for the Liaison Committee's consideration. Just give some thought to possible travel from April to June, this spring, and the deadline, February 16.

With that, we have a couple of new faces around the table today. I'd like to welcome Michelle Rempel Garner and Mr. Melillo. Welcome. It's always good to have you here.

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

I'd like to welcome back our witnesses. We are, hopefully, drawing near the end of the time we'll be spending with you, but we appreciate your continued presence and expertise in helping us move through this piece of legislation.

We're going to pick up where we left off. Where we are right now is with a couple of stood clauses, so we're going to resume with clause 2.

(On clause 2)

CPC-2 was adopted. Therefore, we created a new clause, clause 4.1.

Now we have CPC-1, which is Mr. Schmale's amendment. I'll ask Mr. Schmale if he'll move CPC-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. I call our meeting to order.

This is meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we're meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21, 2023, and pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. We have only members online today. They know how to run things remotely, so I'm going to skip over the rest of that part.

I would like to welcome some substitutes today. We have Monsieur Lemire from the Bloc, and Heath MacDonald and Jenica Atwin for the Liberals. Welcome.

I'd also like to welcome back our officials from the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. We have Michael Schintz, federal negotiations manager of negotiations—central for treaties and aboriginal government, and Blake McLaughlin, director general of negotiations—central for treaties and aboriginal government.

From the Department of Justice, we have Julia Redmond, legal counsel.

It's good to see that everybody's back here with us after Christmas and the holidays. Welcome back.

(On clause 13)

We'll now go through the continuation of Bill C-53. We're in clause-by-clause, and we left off with a discussion on clause 13.

I don't have anybody else on the speaking list. Does anybody want to speak to clause 13 before we move on?

Ms. Idlout, we'll go to you first.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

She's going onward and upward.

We've been very fortunate to have Ms. Davies with us.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and happy holidays. Best wishes for 2024.

We don't know what our time slot will be for the new year. As soon as we get that, we will be returning.

The intention is to suspend. We'll be carrying forward the meeting until we conclude the deliberations on Bill C-53. When we suspend versus adjourn, it means that we won't be sending out new notices with rooms and all of those good things. You'll get an email letting you know where we'll be, so watch for that. I will do my best to touch base with everybody before we come back to make sure you know where we are on what day. Also, talk to your whips.

For now, thank you so much for the work. We're getting there. There's more work to do in the new year.

Safe travels.

We are suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 5:32 p.m., Thursday, December 14, 2023]

[The meeting resumed at 11:06 a.m., Monday, January 29, 2024]

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll now return to Bill C-53 clause-by-clause.

We're moving to a new clause, 8.1, which has resulted in NDP-4.2.

(On clause 8.1)

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

On the advice of my legislative clerks, I'd like to indicate that Bill C-53 provides for the recognition of certain Métis governments as defined in the bill. Moreover, clause 8 of the bill provides that “the Métis collectivity set out in column 2” of the schedule “holds the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

This amendment seeks to introduce the possibility of a dispute resolution process “If a Métis collectivity or an Indigenous governing body raises an issue in relation to the authority of a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of a dispute resolution process between a Métis collectivity and an indigenous governing body is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome back to the continuation of meeting number 92. We're working on the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Before we get into the meeting today with some of the procedural things we need to do, in the spirit of the season and with the goodwill we saw the other day, I have a little box of Merci chocolates that I'll pass around the table. Officials are welcome to join in. Staff, please make sure that they get to you.

For those who have joined us at the back, we'll make sure that you get some chocolates as well to celebrate the progress we have been making on this bill and that we will hopefully continue to make today.

It's a little token of gratitude from—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's good to be back for meeting number 92. I call this meeting to order.

We are here today to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-53, 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.

Now that we're in session, I'd like to remind everybody that there are no screenshots and no photos allowed.

I'd like to give a big welcome to everybody who has come to see us today, all the members of the public who are here. Welcome.

As always, welcome back to our officials. We appreciate your being here again today.

(On clause 8)

Colleagues, when we left off, we were on clause 8, and I had Mr. Schmale on top of the speaking list from the last meeting.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Schmale.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I thank Sébastien for his motion and his sharing with me previously. I think we've gotten some answers. I'm wondering if we can't table it at the next meeting so we can refine and amend what we've already provided to you, and then have a conversation about the substance of the first part of it for the next meeting. It doesn't appear like we're going to make any progress that draws the Bill C-53 clause-by-clause to a debate.

I'm wondering if it's okay to discuss this at the next meeting, as time is running short. It would be nice to get to one vote before we close tonight.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since there’s five minutes left in the meeting, I just want to seize the opportunity and table the motion I sent to the clerk so that it can pass.

I was quite surprised by the speediness of the response sent to us before the committee’s meeting, and I want to highlight that.

You’ll understand that the second part of this motion can be deleted, but I will still read out the first part:

That the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs call upon the Government of Canada (1) to clarify how the Crown intends to conduct future negotiations with the Métis of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the inherent rights of section 5 of the Constitution Act of Canada, and to confirm that no overlap will be created as a result of such treaties on First Nations territories without having their free, prior and informed consent on these issues and on the territories of Quebec;

During a previous meeting of this committee, Mr. Justin Roy, councillor of the Kebaowek First Nation, talked about the lack of true recognition of title and rights. In response to one of the questions posed by my colleague, Marilène Gill, he said:

If this bill were to go through, it would have large impacts on our unceded Algonquin territory, only because we have been the rights and title holders of these lands since time immemorial.

This seems to me to be a fundamental issue that merits clarification. I think my role as a legislator also means acting as an intermediary to communicate the needs of my community.

I’m ready to take a step to facilitate voting on Bill C‑53 and passing it, but I have to provide clarification to the first nations in my community in order to get their support.

For example, it must be specified in writing that Bill C‑53 does not apply to Quebec’s territories, because that is at the heart of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation. Mr. Roy testified to convey that.

In the case of the Chalk River site and consultations held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, tabling the bill took four or five years because Indigenous peoples had to be consulted. Obviously, it was too late by then, and the Commission recommended that the project go forward. There was an impact on their ancestral lands and it could have an impact on the very safety of all citizens.

In my opinion, situations that potentially involve an overlap between territories do indeed require this kind of clarification. They are part of the determining factors to review before supporting or rejecting Bill C‑53.

Currently, the chiefs of first nations communities back home, who are Algonquin, are asking me to oppose this bill.

I therefore suggest you support the motion you received by email. Obviously, when it comes to the second part of it, thank you once again for the answer you provided.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will refrain from making any lame jokes.

It asks that Bill C-53, in the schedule, be amended by replacing the portion of item 1 in column 2 on page 11 with the following:

Métis Communities of Alberta that consent to be represented by the Métis Nation of Alberta

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the amendment. I think this is more housekeeping than anything.

We're asking that Bill C-53 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 10 the following new clause:

26 If Bill S-13, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 1 of that Act and section 3.1 of this Act are in force, that section 3.1 is repealed.

This is something I believe we all agreed on. It's more of a housekeeping issue than anything.

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

While you're saying that, it's actually referenced in the preamble of Bill C-53. It's the “recognition and implementation agreements”.

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

It was just more to add some context. I think what they're talking about is the legally binding agreement that comes into effect once Bill C-53 passes.

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

It's just something to maybe add to the conversation or just to hear myself talk.

Once Bill C-53 passes, it then puts into effect, in essence, the agreements that were signed between the three organizations and the government.

Right at the beginning of chapter 12, on page 31, it reads, “The Parties are committed to negotiations with a view to reaching a self-government Treaty within two years after the Effective Date”.

I think it's important to realize that Ms. Idlout and Mr. Viersen kind of opened the door to.... There are some legal ramifications after Bill C-53 happens that, through the treaty process, may or may not include that. I'm not saying it does, but if it does, if I get the conversation, I think what they're looking at is to maybe put some barriers in that allow those who have opposing views on this legislation to have some comfort, if you will—if that's the right choice of words.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues and witnesses.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming back for our meeting this afternoon.

We are now on meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I recognize that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21, 2023, and pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, the committee is meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

We left off this morning on clause 8.

We have a great audience joining us today and, just as a reminder, now that we're in session, there's no photography and there is no recording. That applies to members and, of course, officials. If you want to capture the moment, you'll have to do it afterwards.

We're on clause 8. We left off with me asking if the member wanted to move amendment CPC-3.2. We had a general discussion on clause 8. I had nobody else on the speaking list, so now I'll move to CPC-3.2—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Next on my list I have Ms. Idlout.

Lori, before I go to you, I just want to say this. Yesterday, as we adjourned, I said that I had requests for resources for the rest of this week. When I went to bed last night, we had not heard anything. I was notified at about 8:30 this morning that the request had come through and the resources we received for today were starting at 9:00 a.m. We therefore could have started at 9:00 a.m. I've been clear that, as chair, my job is to secure resources to enable the discussion to happen on Bill C-53. It's up to members to do with that as they see fit and to have debate.

We talked yesterday, and one of the solutions put out there was for clause 8 to be stood in order to allow members to come up with wording. This would allow us to move on to clause 9. Clause 8 could be held before clause 2 in our proceedings.

It was short notice, but that's what we got. That's what we're working with. I have a request in for tomorrow, just to give you notice. Right now, it's from noon until 6:00 p.m., but I'm happy to extend that until midnight if we want to. We have a request for resources on Thursday and Friday. If we need to keep going into Christmas, I can explore what that looks like as well. As chair, I need to be in town, and I'm willing to do that in order to continue to facilitate the discussion.

That's why we have the resources today, with short notice. I appreciate everyone making it here on short notice. That's where we're at. We're back on the discussion of clause 8.

Next on my list, related to the motion to adjourn with conditions, I'll go to Ms. Idlout.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 90 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Colleagues, today I was able to get some extra resources. I thank everyone for making it here on short notice. Good morning.

We're meeting to continue our clause-by-clause review of Bill C-53. We left off yesterday on the general discussion of clause 8. That's where we're at. I don't have a speaking list for clause 8.

I had Arnold first and then Gary.

Indigenous Services

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

Mr. Chair, Bill C-29 was introduced on the last day of the June 2022 session, which was about the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Bill C-38 was introduced on December 14, 2022, and not revisited until 11 months later, again on the last day of a session. Bill C-53 was introduced on the last day of the session in June of 2023, and today we have the introduction of water legislation, not on the last day but the last week of a session.

Does the member believe that the government is serious about its promise to indigenous people when, at the last moment and at the end of the last four sessions of Parliament, the government chooses to introduce indigenous legislation?

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

Madam Chair, I thought the member was going to talk about Bill C-53.

Nonetheless, I would note that the Alberta government has been one of the few governments in this country to put together a fund so that indigenous communities could have an equity stake. They can use that fund to pursue equity stakes in major energy projects. This has brought economic reconciliation to first nations across northern Alberta, ensuring that all Canadians get to participate in the economy and ensuring prosperity for everyone.

When people can take home a powerful paycheque, it gives them the freedom to live their life in the way they feel is necessary. I will never apologize for ensuring that we can have full economic reconciliation in this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I guess I'm not feeling more informed about what feels like a fast-tracking of one Métis right to self-government as opposed to another in the same territory. It would be so useful to understand how that worked and in what way the Metis Settlements General Council formed part of the decision-making as to what would happen with Bill C-53. I don't know what limitations you have to share that information.

When we need to recognize, unfortunately, through this process that Métis have the right to self-government, I am very concerned with what's going to happen in Alberta, based on the testimony that we heard, because individuals can choose who they want to represent them. What will happen with the citizenship of the Metis Settlements General Council because of what's happening with the recognition of the Métis Nation of Alberta?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

When you're talking about core Métis governance in Alberta, and Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the Métis Nation of Alberta, setting aside that there are separate negotiations, do you think that...?

Also, this bill talks about UNDRIP and when the duty to consult would be triggered. Have you analyzed whether free, prior and informed consent has been triggered, considering that core governance in one territory would be impacted against another?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

That flows logically to my next question.

When you were talking about your partners in developing Bill C-53, was the Metis Settlements General Council considered a partner in this codevelopment process?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Uplaakut. Good morning.

I don't get to say “uplaakut” to this group very often. We normally meet in the afternoons.

I do appreciate the line of questioning from the Conservatives this morning.

Based on the responses from the table, from the witnesses, I do have some questions that I want to get clarification on. In Canada's history, with Canada's colonial history, what Canada did to get rid of not just our cultures, not just our languages but our governments is still felt today.

I think the fact that we have to use legislation to recognize their self-government is what's frustrating, and that's what we've heard from first nations and Métis throughout this study. The fact is that legislation recognizing an indigenous governing body is still a form of colonialism.

Having said that, I've always tried in this study to make sure that I'm founded in the fact that Métis do inherently have a right to self-government. Through this study, we've learned that there have been a lot of infringements and valid concerns about what this Liberal government has done to get Bill C-53 on the table. Because of that, we've heard that a lot of division has been created, not just between first nations and Métis, but Métis against Métis, which is the most disrespect that I've seen.

It's so unfortunate that we learned through this study that while MNA, the Métis Nation of Alberta, was doing great work to be recognized as a self-governing body, at the same time, the Metis Settlement General Council was being ignored and was not a part of these discussions. To see that division in Alberta between the Métis is a huge injustice, and that's what we're grappling with here today. That's what we, as parliamentarians, are trying to reconcile, because we should not be seen to be trying to diminish the good work of the MNA because of what it will cost to the Metis Settlement General Council.

We do need a lot of clarifications if we're going to support this bill because we do not want to.... I know I do not want to play a part in creating more division among indigenous peoples.

When you were responding to Mr. Vidal about indigenous governing bodies, one of the responses from you was that Bill C-53 was codeveloped with partners. Can you talk more about what that process was and why it is that your partners are so adamant that “Indigenous governing body” be included in clause 8?

That's my first question.

[Julia Redmond]

To clarify, Bill C-92 contemplates a broader set of possible indigenous governments than is covered in Bill C-53.

Bill C-53 concerns only Métis governments. We're talking about a particular category. It's a subset of indigenous governments. Because Bill C-92 is broader, the definition of “Indigenous governing body” makes sense in that it would capture a broader set of indigenous governments.

They're trying to do two different things.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Let me go through my introductory comments.

We recognize that we are meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

We're continuing to meet on clause-by-clause of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

We only have members online today. The members online know how this works. I'm not going to go through all of the interpretation and muting and things.

I'd like to welcome back our officials who are joining us on a lovely Monday morning. Thank you for being here.

For clause-by-clause, I think everybody knows how it goes now. With regard to the point that was raised last week, I'll make sure I give an opportunity for people to weigh in, if they want to weigh in on any given clause.

Where we left off was with debate on clause 8 and amendment CPC-3.2.

I'll ask, from the Conservatives, whether a member would like to move CPC-3.2.

Mr. Zimmer.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I'm going to provide a ruling from the chair. I'll ask for your indulgence as we go through this.

Clause 5 of Bill C-53 provides that treaties entered into by a Métis government and His Majesty in right of Canada may be brought into force on a date fixed by the Governor in Council, once the Governor in Council is satisfied that the conditions for the coming into force of a treaty by the Métis government and the Government of Canada have been met.

The amendment proposes that both Houses of Parliament must affirm, by resolution, that the requirements for the coming into force of a treaty have been met before the Governor in Council can fix the date on which a treaty can come into force and add the necessary information to the schedule.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, subjecting the coming into force of a treaty to the affirmation by resolution of both Houses of Parliament is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have explained it in what I just read. Briefly, it's beyond the scope of the bill passed at second reading. That's where we have exceeded the.... We're beyond it.

Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities. This amendment is contrary because it would not recognize any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that's represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule. That's where it exceeds.

With that, there's no debate allowed once we get into it. That's the explanation, so we'll call the required vote with our clerk leading that.

The question is whether to sustain the chair's ruling that NDP-2.1 is inadmissible.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 4)

This leads us to clause 4.

First up, we have CPC-1.4. Would the member like to move this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

On this one, there is a ruling I'd like to share with the committee.

Bill C-53 seeks to advance the recognition of the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, of certain Métis collectivities and the recognition of the authority of Métis governments to act on behalf of those collectivities.

The amendment seeks to clarify that “nothing in this Act is to be construed as recognizing any right or claim of any Métis collectivity that is represented by a Métis government set out in column 1 of the schedule”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

It is the opinion of the chair, since Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the right to self-determination of certain Métis collectivities, that the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill; therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

That's the ruling of the chair on NDP-2.1.

Mr. Viersen.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to provide a ruling from the chair, based on advice from our expert team here.

Bill C-53 provides a framework for the implementation of treaties between Canada and the Métis governments listed in the schedule. The amendment seeks to identify an element that cannot be contained in a future treaty. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

Mr. Viersen.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues. Let's get started. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We recognize that we're meeting on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21 and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

We're going to get right into it. We had a start on Tuesday, so we're going to pick up right where we left off. We're on new clause 2.1, with MP Schmale's subamendment to CPC-1.1.

We are on the subamendment, and the floor is with Mr. Viersen.

[Julia Redmond]

The only thing I would add is that those agreements signed in February 2023 between Canada and the MNA, the MN-S and the MNO would remain in force regardless of whether Bill C-53 becomes law.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

To repeat my question—I don't think I was heard—if Mr. Viersen's recommendation is to allow the interpretation of Métis individuals asserting those types of things, what could be the potential legal impacts? When I look at Bill C-53, I see it as good protection against identity theft. We know there are a lot of “pretendians” out there.

Because of our status, our beneficiary list and the registries, we are able to confirm, through our collectives and through our governments, who indigenous peoples are. I wonder if opening that interpretation creates a loophole for those people who might not be indigenous to try to assert indigeneity. I wonder if that could be allowed to happen in this legislation.

I don't know if I am interpreting it correctly, but is it a possibility that this would happen?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

We're going to remain on this one and talk about “collectivities” and “peoples”, just to keep on tap what we're meaning, because it could have.... I don't know what kinds of impacts there will be if we're not consistent. I'm quite concerned about how that could create confusion, especially given that, for example, we were told by the Metis Settlements General Council about their concerns with the Métis Nation of Alberta and how this impact could mean that membership might change from the Métis settlements to the Métis Nation of Alberta because of this enabling legislation. I'm trying to think of the reality of what's going to happen to the Alberta Métis and what's going to happen with each of their memberships, based on what happens on Bill C-53.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm not asking about the courts. I'm asking about, for example, a Métis nation in Alberta that is not an authorized Métis nation according to Bill C-53, and they are saying their rights are being infringed. The reason that this clarity has been sought is that this concern is out there.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I need to understand this based on a future scenario, so I'm going to ask you to pretend that you're a lawyer in the future that has to interpret Bill C-53 as if we passed both of the NDP amendments. What would be the effect of the interpretation based on what those realities are and not based on what the intent of the past is?

Right now, I understand that intent is one thing, but we know that in law, intent doesn't always result in what the interpretation of it will be. I don't want to base our decisions today on what the intent is but on what the possible legal interpretation could result in at a later time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

You're saying that my NDP-4.2 amendment is basically a duplication of something else that already exists in Bill C-53. Where can we find that specific clause that's a duplication of it?

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

Thank you.

I just want to clarify one thing that was just brought up in your comments. Were you referring to Bill C-53 as potentially a living document?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the House order of reference adopted on June 21, 2023, and pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, October 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Our meeting is taking place in a hybrid format today. For those members who are online, you know the drill, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. For those in the room, now that we've started, no photos or screenshots are allowed.

I'd like to welcome back our officials. From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have Martin Reiher, senior assistant deputy minister, treaties and aboriginal government.

Welcome.

We have Michael Schintz, federal negotiations manager, negotiations—central, treaties and aboriginal government, and Blake McLaughlin, director general, negotiations—central, treaties and aboriginal government.

Finally, from the Department of Justice, we have Julia Redmond, legal counsel.

Welcome to our officials.

I'd also like to welcome Eric Melillo, and Jenica Atwin is here for the duration of this one. It's good to see you.

Colleagues, I'm going to go through a bit of a script here so that we know what we're up against.

To begin, I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-53.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I'll call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. I have double clerks here today to help keep speaking order lists.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package each member received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. That's an important consideration. We are allowed to take amendments from the floor, but they need to be in writing to the clerk.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment.

Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

With that as the instructions for today, we're going to move right into the agenda.

I have a couple of comments here to give you before we get down to business.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, and of the preamble are postponed.

(On clause 2)

I call clause 2. Now, since there are a couple of amendments to clause 2, the interpretation clause, I suggest that we postpone the study of clause 2 until the end. This will allow us to first consider and make a decision on amendments that could have an impact on the definitions.

As a reminder, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773 that:

The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.

Therefore, clause 2 will be considered after the schedule.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

If anybody has anything related to clause 2, hold that until we get near the very end. I have it in my notes and I will be bringing us back to that.

Is there agreement that we skip to new clause 2.1?

Go ahead, Arnold.

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?

Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.

The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.

Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.

Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime,being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.

On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021.

They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.

Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.

On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.

Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.

Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop.

For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.

That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.

The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.

I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.

This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before.

There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”

The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.

The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.

Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.

The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.

I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.

It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

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

For the Métis settlements, their concern, again, is that if Bill C-53 passes and receives royal assent and it happens, and a treaty proceeds and gets approved, and those kinds of things, then it would neither stop Fort McKay from coming forward to work on the same process—and I want to be clear—nor stop anyone from choosing between one or the other to represent them. Is that correct so far? Could they still be a member of—I'll pick randomly—Fort McKay?

Okay, we see a nod yes. Oh, I'm sorry; maybe we don't. I shouldn't out you like that. I'll wait for Martin to answer.

Could they be a member of both? I guess that was my follow-up question.

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

I'm sure you've been following the committee quite regularly as we discuss this. There were some Ontario chiefs who came in to testify. I asked a similar question to the minister about the land issue that was brought up a few times in testimony. If the self-government bill, Bill C-53, passes, and I know a treaty is next, could this also proceed without treaty, or is treaty the next logical step after that? Do you get my question?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Thank you, Chairperson.

I wonder if you could very quickly explain the connection between the enabling legislation of Bill C-53 and the self-government agreements of the three provincial nations. How does that connection work?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Reiher.

I understand your situation and you certainly understand mine. I want to make sure that everyone is happy with Bill C‑53. That will be all for me.

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if it's my place to present a position on this issue.

I think the minister has indicated that he is willing to hear about the amendments that will be proposed and that he will examine them carefully. Our role will then be to support him in this work.

At this time, our position, as public servants, is that the current version of Bill C‑53 achieves the objectives pursued. These objectives are essentially to recognize the inherent rights of certain communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and to recognize that the indigenous governments mentioned represent these communities in terms of the rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act,1982. The bill proposes a mechanism for approving future treaties.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reiher, I wish we could continue along the same lines a little. We've talked about consultations several times during the hearing of various witnesses. We're talking about amendments. The question of fairness also came up today.

I'd like to get your impression, since we can only talk about impressions at this point. Do you have the impression that certain amendments could promote acceptance of Bill C‑53 by all the witnesses we've heard from so far? Is this possible and, if so, what would these amendments be?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're resuming the study of Bill C-53 with officials. I have you first up for five minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I do want to talk to the technicians on Bill C-53, so I'd ask that we adjourn debate on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay. I will restart the clock. I just wanted to make sure we were on Bill C-53.

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

I indicated earlier that the treaties are quite narrow in scope. They essentially deal with notions of membership, citizenship, leadership selection and internal administration. I think Martin elaborated that they would include things like what the fiscal frame would be, how the administration would look and what the constitution would be. I think those are the matters being contemplated.

Absolutely, harvesting or land rights are not part of the treaties, and it's quite clear within the text of this bill.

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

UNDRIP is, as Gary mentioned earlier, something that we worked on and that this committee worked on leading up to 2019 and 2021. In a world where we're in the process of implementing UNDRIP at every departmental level, as a whole of government, it's very important that the legislation we bring forward is in line with the principles of UNDRIP. It's essential that we recognize what self-determination looks like and what it means for governments to dictate and to control matters. We're now in a generation and in an era where, for self-determination, it is the nations and the people impacted who will make those decisions. I strongly believe this bill does that.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for that, Minister.

We've talked about how we're trying to be consistent with UNDRIP, especially article 33, which gives nations the ability to determine who their own membership is. Is Bill C-53 consistent with UNDRIP as written? Can you talk a bit about some of the things that we did put in place to make sure that we are consistent with UNDRIP?

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

Yes, and this is where the review process is important. There is a review process and there is also a cross-checking with the registrar in terms of the Indian Act to make sure that there's no duplication. Ultimately, if somebody meets all those requirements, then they're admitted as members.

I think the question that we need to address in the future, and with urgency, is the issue of broader issues of definitions under the act that preclude some people from being members of certain communities. I think that's work that we still need to do. It is important, and I acknowledge it, and I think it's something that we need to....

We can't have that cloud the conversation here. The mistakes of the past we cannot repeat in modern legislation where we are trying to avoid and learn from our past mistakes. I think that's really what we're trying to do with Bill C-53.

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

I have met with the Chiefs of Ontario. I spoke at their AGM last week. I've met with a number of chiefs individually. I have met chiefs in smaller groups. I have listened to them intently in terms of their concerns. The concerns that were laid out are not what are in the bill.

The assurance I can give them today, and the assurance I can give you, Lori, is that Bill C-53 is essentially a recognition of the governance of the Métis of Ontario. It does not in any way deal with harvesting rights. It does not deal with land rights. The treaties contemplated by Bill C-53, again, do not contemplate either land or harvesting rights.

I don't know how else to give that assurance. It is in the language in the text—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I have 10 seconds left and I think you can answer with a simple yes or no: are the rights and titles of other first nations or Métis nations likely to be affected if Bill C‑53 is passed?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'd like to continue in the same vein as earlier. You mentioned the issue of trust, and I'm very pleased about that. It's true that trust must be earned with indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples.

A chief in my riding, Jean-Charles Piétacho, says—and this is also what we saw at the committee—that it's been centuries, some 500 years, since these peoples have had a voice. Clearly, they are now going to have their say. That's what several witnesses said about reconciliation. They said they agreed that nations should have rights.

They talk about reconciliation, but they'd also like to talk about truth. We also have to agree on truth. I think truth—as my colleague Mr. Vidal also mentioned earlier—is part of the process of gaining trust.

I'd like to come back to my previous question, because I didn't get a clear answer. The Kebaowek community and others maintain that Bill C‑53 currently opens up a possibility, not an eventuality as you say, but really a possibility.

I'm not just talking about the present. I'm talking about the future, too. If we project into the future without any time limit, once Bill C-53 is in effect, is there any possibility that there will be any impact on the rights and titles of Kebaowek, for example, or other Métis or first nations communities?

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Okay.

The other thing that came up a few times is the Powley decision from 2003. Are there any insights you'd like to share with respect to Bill C-53 and how it acknowledges or builds upon the significance of that decision? I know 30 seconds is probably not a lot of time for that, but I'll give you a chance.

Thank you.

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

This is the legislative process that enshrines Bill C-53 into law. It provides a framework for what the next step looks like, which is the treaty process, and ratification of the treaty is contemplated by an order in council. It's unlikely for it to come back to committee, but of course the committee is the master of its own domain, and at any point it can request updates from governments on these processes.

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

Yes. Thank you for the question.

I'm going to start, and then maybe I'll ask Martin to add to that.

Bill C-53 will essentially recognize the three Métis governments in question—Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Once the recognition is complete, other discussions will be undertaken at another table regarding a possible treaty, which again will be limited to issues around membership and governance and matters internal to the organization.

At that time, there will be a process whereby there will be consultations. I think in this particular case—and Martin could maybe add to this—once the consultations are complete, if there are things outside of what was contemplated in the agreement—new concerns that come forward—then there will be the process to amend and rework the treaty. Once it's reworked, then there will be a process of ratification. Once it's ratified, it will come to government for an order in council recognition of the treaty.

I think Martin could maybe add something about the processing, because he's done this many, many times.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Okay.

In Bill C-53, there are three provisions. The first one is in number two of the preamble. The second part is in paragraph 4(b). The third part is in clause 8, where these provisions specifically talk about self-government, saying that the Métis that have been selected to be recognized to have self-governing rights are “authorized”.

In what way have you determined that these three—the MNO, the MNA and the MN-S—are the ones that are the authorized Métis governments whose rights should be respected?

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

I met with them in my recent visit to Alberta—not with all of the settlements, but I did meet with the major ones. Essentially, the recognition that is happening with Bill C-53 is not for all Métis organizations. For example, the Manitoba Métis Federation is not part of Bill C-53. The ones subject to this bill are the Métis nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

There are some groups that are going through a process of recognition as section 35 rights holders. At some point, if they choose to organize, we will support them once a recognition is there. Right now, it is these three that are subject to Bill C-53.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

We have heard from the Metis Settlements General Council in Alberta, who have their own government. Have you consulted with them in preparation for Bill C-53?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Excuse me for interrupting again, but I'd like to clarify my question.

You're talking about Bill C‑ 53. I'm talking about what this bill—which will not be applied in a vacuum—could lead to. It could lead to something else.

My question is very simple. Is there a possibility of this happening, or no possibility at all? I'm not saying it could happen the very next day, but is it possible? So you can answer me yes or no, depending on whether there is a possibility or not.

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

Thank you, Marilène.

Look, there is no impact on other indigenous peoples' section 35 rights with Bill C-53. If it comes to a stage—

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

Thank you.

I want to highlight article 4 of the UN declaration. It says:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Essentially, we're talking about an internal structure. Bill C-53 recognizes the three organizations, the Métis Nation of Ontario, Métis Nation— Saskatchewan and Métis Nation of Alberta, as self-governing authorities.

As a result, it is my considered opinion that—

[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.

[Dave Lamouche]

Yes, we do.

Most of our Métis people have historical connections that come from the eastern part of Canada, and many of them have come to Alberta as well.

There is a Métis Nation in Canada. We're not saying we're not part of that Métis Nation. What we are saying is that there are two governments in Alberta. One is being recognized under Bill C-53, but the Metis Settlements General Council has been around for many years. It operates and has responsibilities as a government within Alberta. We, too, are working towards our federal recognition, and we are also working towards our treaty with the federal government.

Since Daniels, as Blake mentioned earlier, since 2016, things have changed, and we are moving towards that goal as well. What we are saying is that one government cannot overreach and take over another government within Alberta.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Roy, what I gather from your testimony is that you want the government to move quickly. You say they don't listen to you enough. And yet, it's having an impact on your community, much like Bill C‑53 might.

Could you tell us more about these consequences for your community? You said that, in terms of reconciliation, the pace was glacial or very slow—I can't remember the word you used.

In the short term, what would be the consequences? How could we work better and make sure you're heard?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I understand very well that it is stressful to appear before us to talk about a bill that requires difficult discussions.

I'll try to put things as simply as possible. Bill C‑53 would recognize the Métis Nation of Ontario as a government. This could lead to treaty negotiations.

Do you believe these potential negotiations could affect your title and rights, given your territory?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank all the witnesses.

I'd like to ask Mr. Justin Roy about what he said earlier. I believe that at the beginning of his presentation, he mentioned that he would see a problem with any discussion of certain rights or recognition of rights on the territory of the Kebaowek Nation.

What would be the impact of Bill C‑53 on the titles and rights of the Kebaowek Nation, if passed?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Let me clarify this, for a second. The purpose of Bill C-53 is to get that exact, explicit and clear vision you are talking about, in terms of who represents whom.

Should it be up to the government to determine that, or should we not pass that over to the Métis themselves to determine, then come back...? I understand there is always going to be opposition to every discussion and move forward, but isn't that part of democracy? You have your opposition toward things that may be important to the whole, which some do not agree with.

[Dave Lamouche, President, Metis Settlements General Council]

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable members of the committee.

As the duly elected president of the Metis Settlements General Council, I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, vice-president Brenda Blyan.

I also acknowledge our settlement leaders, who are seated behind us today to observe the proceedings.

For nearly a century, we have been entrusted by our people to protect our land, our culture and, more importantly, our future. It is no different today, particularly as it relates to the significant deliberations on Bill C-53.

Our written submission provides a robust history of who we are as the Métis settlements in Alberta. It is our responsibility, passed on to us by our forefathers, the Métis Famous Five and those who followed them, to ensure that our voices are always heard.

In the wake of the north-west Métis risings in the late 1800s, our Métis settlement leaders worked hard to ensure Métis prosperity in Alberta, and subsequently to secure our 1.25 million acres of lands, a land mass equalling the size of Prince Edward Island.

In the 1990s, Alberta saw fit to entrench our lands under the Alberta constitution. Through legislation, they recognized and committed to our settlement government, which now serves our people across eight settlement communities.

We are the only group that has appeared before you regarding Bill C-53 who can lay claim to being recognized under existing provincial legislation and a Crown relationship that is backed by a constitutional amendment.

Like you, as governors of the people of the land, we are also responsible for the care of those who live in the settlements that we govern, including for housing, infrastructure, water and sewer systems, waste management, land management, emergency and protective services and other important duties of care. Just as Canadian citizenship comes with responsibilities for both citizens and the government, the same is true for the Metis Settlements General Council and our people.

Today, we commend those who strive to attain the goal of federal recognition of Métis rights and self-government. Our immediate goal is to build upon our current framework agreement with the Government of Canada for our own federal government legislation. Given the complexities of our unique position, we remain deliberate in our actions and measured in our approach to this work.

While we want to see forward movement on Métis rights, we believe that Bill C-53 has the effect of overlapping with authority that is long held by MSGC within Alberta. When the arrangement made between the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Government of Canada is looked at as a whole, there is significant lack of clarity on jurisdiction and responsibility, and there is a risk of short- and long-term impacts.

In our view, Bill C-53 compounds that lack of clarity. Despite what the MNA and the Crown assert, we believe that Bill C-53 and subsequent agreements will ultimately impact us and our people. This must be addressed. The bill must be specific, explicit and clear—unequivocal—on these points. The committee has heard several times that the bill should not affect anyone else, even inadvertently.

We have proposed two amendments to the legislation. We believe that they specifically ensure that the intent of the bill or subsequent agreements do not inadvertently infringe on the rights and legislated obligations of the Metis Settlements General Council or other indigenous governments' responsibilities. We are happy to provide those proposed amendments to the committee via the clerk for your consideration.

In conclusion, I want to impress upon you today how critically important the recognition of Métis rights in Canada is. However, we must do so with care and consideration of unintended consequences of such actions where unique and complex and long-standing jurisdictional responsibilities exist, where land and land rights may be impacted and where care of the settlements and those who reside in them are concerned.

Ekosi. Kinanâskomitinâwâw.

With that, thank you for your time today. We look forward to your questions.

[Justin Roy, Councillor, Kebaowek First Nation]

Meegwetch, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Kwe kwe.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify with regard to this important but awkward discussion.

I do this on behalf of Chief Lance Haymond and the rest of my council members of Kebaowek First Nation.

First of all, the Crown representatives and Canada need to find ways to discuss these matters on a nation-to-nation basis. It is awkward not to have that existing relationship to inform the Crown of how it may impact Kebaowek on matters such as this. To be clear, we would have a problem with any discussion of Métis rights and Métis nation recognition in any part of our unceded territory.

We intervene today to draw attention to the fundamental importance of the glacial pace of Crown reconciliation related to title and rights. There are multiple unfulfilled obligations that those rights impose on the Crown, which we continually bring to the attention of governments, the public and our citizens. If we finally had the attention we deserve, we would not be nearly as busy intervening in parliamentary processes, and we would be focused on the governance and developments in front of us in our territory.

It's the lack of true recognition of title and rights that brings us here today. There is a lack of true recognition of our self-determination and our rights to decide for ourselves who the Algonquin Anishinabe of our nations and our territories are. The new-found expression of settler citizens claiming the right to indigenous lands and title through self-identification is a sharp contrast to our governance systems, which have accountability, kinship and relatedness built into our understanding of who we are and who our relatives are.

In Canada, the federal Indian Act has caused confusion and has misinformed generations of non-status Indians about how to keep their ancestral connections to territories. The Indian Act has disconnected them from their true Anishinabe governance systems. Yes, the problem here with Bill C-53 has been the century and a half of the Indian Act and ignoring the indigenous human right to self-determination, or running roughshod over this right through subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. This is a deliberate strategy to disrupt our connections and practices of living on our territories, and we address that in our communities through restoring ourselves and our relationships.

The issue of the recognition and protection of inherent rights is, or should be, paramount to any Crown government regarding sovereign indigenous peoples and their relationship with us. Unfortunately, we have to say that there are still many flaws in our relationship with the Crown, as well as continued colonial and unilateral policy that would contradict the principles found in Bill C-53.

Let me remind you that the British Crown, and later the Canadian government, took our lands by force, without our consent, without compensation. Our people suffered greatly as a result. Ignoring these historic injustices is unacceptable.

This is still going on. We have several concurrent battles to wage because of our unrecognized title, which hampers our capacity to govern our territory. This means that we must, in a piecemeal fashion, commit to challenging Crown decisions that will lead to impacts on our titles and rights.

That is why we felt it important to come today to shed light on a pressing issue that weighs heavily on our hearts: the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's pursuit of licensing for the permanent NSDF—near surface disposal facility—on the Chalk River, Ontario, site, along with many other nuclear files.

This proposal is causing deep concern within our communities. We are concerned about the health of the river, the animals and all life that depends on the great Kichi Zībī, the Ottawa River. The proposed handling and storage of nuclear waste in such close proximity to our sacred river, the Kichi Zībī, is a risk that cannot be taken lightly. This river holds immense spiritual and cultural importance for the Algonquin nation and the communities that will be directly impacted by environmental issues. This will disconnect us in two ways from the lifeblood of our ancestral lands. First, it will have impacts on the environment itself. Second, it will, through generational knowledge of the fact that nuclear poisoning has been allowed to occur, result in our citizens' being cautiously proactive by staying away from a potential source of harm to their human health. This will result in a severing of this key spiritual relationship between our people and the Kichi Zībī itself.

Our utmost concern is the lack of proper consideration for fundamental self-determination, a human right to free, prior and informed consent, a right safeguarded by both Canadian and international laws. We understand that Canada is consulting a group with no recognized section 35 rights about this project. This is the danger of recognizing a corporate body such as the Métis Nation of Ontario. It has no historic relationship, and certainly no pre-existing legal order or relationship, with the great Kichi Zībī. That relationship rests with the Algonquin nation and the 11 recognized communities.

We implore the Government of Canada to comply with its obligations to recognize and protect our rights, and to voice its opposition to this endeavour to recognize a group of people who have not yet proven that they are section 35 rights holders. To be clear, this legislation must be withdrawn, and real consultations with the rights and title holders have to occur.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Wendy Goulet, Treasurer, Cadotte Lake Métis Nation]

Tansi kahkiyaw. Thank you for having me today. My name is Wendy Goulet. I have travelled to Ottawa today to speak on behalf of my nation, the Cadotte Lake Métis Nation.

Before I speak about the draft bill, I want to talk a little about my community. Cadotte Lake is an independent, self-governing, rights-bearing Métis community with distinct historical roots. Our community is located in the Peace River-Lesser Slave Lake area, approximately 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, Alberta.

Our community holds protected constitutional rights as the direct descendants of the historic community founded by the Carifelle, Noskey, Thomas, Supernant, Manitosth, Chalifoux and Cardinal families. These families make up our community to this day. It is about my community's rights that I come to speak today.

Many of the speakers in favour of this bill have spoken about how Métis self-government recognition is long overdue and, equally, that it is the right of the Métis to choose their own government. I agree; 100%, I agree.

However, this House must not make an error in a rush to make up for the historical wrongs committed against the Métis and trample over Métis rights in the name of many over a few.

Bill C-53 is a blunt instrument. If enacted, it will allow one Métis group in Alberta, the Métis Nation of Alberta, to exclusively represent the rights of all Alberta Métis communities, including my own. My community did not vote to pass its rights to the Métis Nation of Alberta. My community was not asked or consulted by Canada or the Métis Nation of Alberta about the agreement that has bartered our rights away.

Instead, together, Canada and the Métis Nation of Alberta have defined the Métis nation within Alberta, which appears in the schedule of this draft bill as the constituency of the Métis Nation of Alberta, to include all Alberta Métis communities, as long as those community members could join up with the Métis Nation of Alberta.

The 2023 agreement was signed in February 2023 between the Métis Nation of Alberta and Canada. It was tabled with Bill C-53 as a sessional paper. Métis nation within Alberta means the Métis collectively and is compromised of Métis nation citizens who are citizens and Métis communities in Alberta whose members are citizens and individuals who are entitled to become citizens based on their connection to these Métis communities living in Alberta and elsewhere. This overreach cannot be permitted. It is not in accordance with the principles of self-determination and self-government. It is other government and other determination.

I recommend that this committee amend the schedule to remove the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis nation within Alberta until such time as an agreement that defines that term is properly restricted to confine it solely to registered members of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 85th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Now that we're in session, there are no screenshots, photos or recordings allowed.

We'll skip the formalities for the virtual participants because, if our members haven't figured it out by now, we have larger problems.

I welcome those who are online.

For those in the room, welcome to all of our witnesses. We have an excellent team here who will work on turning your microphones on and off. If you need interpretation, you need to select the language of choice.

When we get into questions, I have a card system here. When there are 30 seconds left, I'll show the yellow card. When the time is up, we'll have a red card. Don't stop mid-sentence; finish your thought, and we'll move on to the next person. Having discussions is an important part of the meeting. It's pretty rigid in how we do it, but I want to give everyone the time they need to share the thoughts they have within the restrictions we're operating within.

Before we introduce our first panel, I want to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, November 29. If you wish to propose amendments, you can include the legislative counsel, Alexandra Schorah, with your written instructions. She'll ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Now, to jump right into it, we have on our first panel, to continue our discussion of Bill C-53, three organizations represented. First, we have Wendy Goulet and Jason Harman from the Cadotte Lake Métis Nation. We have Justin Roy, councillor, Kebaowek First Nation; and Dave Lamouche, president and Brenda Blyan, vice-president of Metis Settlements General Council.

If I got anybody's name wrong, I apologize. You can fix it when you get your chance to speak.

Each of the organizations will have a five-minute opening statement.

We start with Wendy and Jason, when you're ready. I'll start the clock when you start speaking. You'll have five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With that, we are going to need to end this round. Unfortunately, colleagues, that's the amount of time that we have.

There is a brief in camera discussion we need to have, so I'm going to suspend. We'll need to clear the room. I need our members online to get back into the closed session as quickly as possible. It's a question of where we go next, because it's our last planned week of hearings on C-53, so there's a question I have to put to the committee on that. We're going to suspend and then resume in camera as quickly as possible.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for joining us. I really appreciate your making time to be here with us today.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Grand Chief Joel Abram, Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

My name is Joel Abram. I'm the grand chief of the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, whose seven member nations include Batchewana First Nation, Eelünaapéewi Lahkéewiit or Delaware Nation, Caldwell First Nation, Wahta Mohawks, Oneida Nation of the Thames, Hiawatha First Nation and Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. All together, we advocate for approximately 20,000 first nations citizens.

I am here today to speak of our strong concerns that this bill will irreparably destabilize the foundation of Canada's relations with our member nations. Our member nations affirm their sovereignty, founded in the responsibilities provided to their respective nations by the Creator. The member nations have their own constitutionalism and self-determination, including pre-existing laws that govern over treaty relationships, and they are steadfast that they cannot surrender their sovereignty, territory or way of life.

We stand united in our opposition to Bill C-53, and I am here to ask you to kill the bill. We cannot be idle when this Métis nation claims sovereign rights in our territories in southern, central and northeastern Ontario. Bill C-53 is another example of the Canadian government's attempt to assimilate and subjugate our peoples. It ignores our inherent, aboriginal and treaty rights, and prioritizes Métis rights in lands they have no indigenous claim to.

In 1969, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau introduced a 1969 “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy”, more commonly known as the “white paper”. It proposed eradicating the special legal status of Indians in this country. The result was a first nations uprising and uproar that put an end to that policy. This was the beginning of AIAI: a shared commitment to our sovereignty as indigenous peoples.

We are actively participating in a similar response to Bill C-53 hoping to achieve the same result, because it seems Bill C-53 has the same endgame: eradicating the meaning of the special status we are recognized as having in your Constitution. We are widely known as a first nation organization that takes to the streets to organize demonstrations when Canada goes too far.

Subsection 35(2) is not a colonial equalizer of rights, and our member nations are still called “Indian” alongside Métis and Inuit, but this does not erase the Haudenosaunee, Lenape or Anishinabe nations' very unique and special relationship with Canada.

Co-equal first nation, Inuit and Métis policy continues the harm and damage of the Indian Act. We have communities and nations to heal and revitalize, and the Métis run up the middle with equity-seeking funding they do not deserve in municipalities that have clean drinking water, well-funded schools and first world infrastructure. More specifically, in Bill C-53, recognizing section 35 rights of groups that do not actually have that unique constitutional status waters down the significance of that recognition. This is assimilation all over again through a slightly different angle.

Our nations have treaty relationships that existed before Confederation. At no time did we recognize or have kinship relations with these distinct and separate Métis communities, let alone nations, in our territories. It is that simple. They did not exist at the requisite time they would need to in order to have an inherent right to self-government in territories near or adjacent to our nations. However, our nations must deal with these organizations, the Métis Nation of Ontario and their collectivities within municipalities in southern, central and northern Ontario, and this legislation will make their questionable and illegitimate claims real, while our inherent and treaty rights become subservient.

We were your military allies before Confederation, and we were key treaty partners who shared our territories for the settlement of southern, central and northeastern Ontario. Canada's history could have been a much different one without these important treaty relationships in the 18th and 19th centuries. Bill C-53 grants rights to a Métis collectivity not because it meets the criteria in a Métis right to self-government analysis, but because its name is added to column 2 in a schedule. We are going so far beyond Powley with this legislation.

Our lawyers inform us that differential treatment has always been part of the honour of the Crown and the Crown policy of aboriginal rights, and ignoring these doctrines is to undermine the significance of section 35 for nations that hold inherent aboriginal and treaty rights based on sacred relationships to our homelands and adherence to the law. This is assimilation all over again.

Not only does Bill C-53 promote assimilation by ignoring section 35 analysis, but it also subjugates our member nations and their jurisdiction to that of this modern treaty contemplated in this legislation.

Clause 7 of Bill C-53 states that a Métis treaty would take precedence over any inconsistent provisions of the bill or of any piece of federal legislation. This includes existing first nation treaty implementation legislation and means that the implementation of legitimate first nation treaties would take a back seat to the implementation of the Métis Nation of Ontario’s treaty in event of any conflict.

[Dean Gladue, Regional Director, Thompson Okanagan, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Sports, Métis Nation British Columbia]

Good evening. My name is Dean Gladue. I am Métis. I was born in Dawson Creek in northeastern British Columbia and was raised in a Métis community known as Moccasin Flats, which is currently known as Chetwynd. My parents are Bill and Blanche Gladue, née Desjarlais. My father's Métis parents are Louis Gladue and Madeline Gladue, née Laboucane and Lafranaise. My mother's Métis parents are Joseph Desjarlais and Helen Desjarlais, née Belcourt. My family has generations of Métis people marrying Métis people. I am proud to be Métis as enshrined in the Constitution of Canada.

Thank you for your invitation to appear as a witness today. I open today with one statement and one call to Canada.

I support the self-determination of the Métis-governing members of the Métis National Council—Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and Métis Nation of Ontario. I am optimistic that Bill C-53 establishes a pathway to self-determination for Métis in British Columbia.

Today, I'm thinking of my ancestors and all the things they would want to say. My family continues to practice our language, nehiyawk. We speak the language, and we practice our culture very intently. To this day, I'm a son, grandson, great-grandson, brother, uncle and cousin. There are many cousins, as we know, in the indigenous world—lots of cousins.

My family lived on road allowances. My mother attended residential school. I was almost scooped out of my family at the hospital shortly after being born. I carry teachings of what it means to be Métis, the people who govern themselves—of the resistance. This was passed to me from my grandfather, my mooshoom, Louis Gladue. He shared what his mooshoom, his grandpa, said.

Also, I served 26 years in the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Since 2017, I have served as an elected leader in the ministry with the Métis Nation B.C. Every generation of my family has been involved with the Métis nation and this movement since 1816.

I do this work because Métis people are struggling. I see it in my own family. Métis voices are limited. Even in the next generation we are seeing that. The policies of Canada and its provinces are still negatively impacting us. This is the outcome of Canada not recognizing Métis rights to self-government.

I carry my Métis laws with me—my right to care for my children, to speak my language—nehiyawk—to practice my culture, and my right to identify as Métis and to be claimed by a Métis family and nation. I have a right to be supported by Métis society and Métis government.

I am still Métis here in front of you today. My Métis government, Métis Nation B.C., submitted a brief on Bill C-53, which also supports this bill and calls on Canada to see the bill as a pathway to self-government for MNBC. Bill C-53 is Canada upholding a right of self-governance for our fellow governing members.

For you truly to uphold UNDRIP, Canada must recognize the history and cultural practices that all Métis in Canada, including section 35 rights-holding Métis living in B.C. I am sharing the Cree word. It's also a very well-known word in the Métis culture, otipemisiwak, which means people who govern themselves. You heard it earlier with President Caron.

Métis people have always had our laws, our ways of organizing ourselves, distinct Métis societies and recognition of Métis governance. This is key to the recognition of our rights. Métis are highly mobile through cultural practices and livelihoods. We are also a displaced people due to colonial practices such as the residential schools and sixties scoop. Métis laws, cultural governments and jurisdiction over our families were intentionally disrupted and silenced. Outcomes of Canada's laws and policies.... For example, our children, the government continues to deny our jurisdiction over our children. To this day, Métis people live in fear that their children will be taken away by the government. Once Métis children are gone without a recognized Métis government, the individual families must fight to learn where their children are. The inability of Canada to enter into government-to-government agreements with MNBC has caused this.

My story, my family's story, shared in part here with you today is an example of our Métis laws and practices. I believe that some of my family members are still alive because of my parents exercising their Métis rights. My family knows that we need a Métis nation, a Métis government, to advocate with the provincial and federal governments to respect our laws and culture and our Métis-specific services.

My family worked with Métis Nation B.C. to create Naomie's principle, in recognition of my niece Naomie. When you lose a life because of Canada's or B.C.'s policies, that affects us deeply and emotionally. This is hard to talk about. It must be talked about, because you must understand the effects of colonial government. We are creating Naomie's principle because of the continued loss of life due to the lack of culturally safe Métis wellness services. We must ensure that B.C. is a safe place for Métis to be Métis.

Building relationships, transformation and reconciliation is possible. Métis are doing this every day.

I hope this bill gets passed so my Métis brothers and sisters in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are recognized by Canada. Bill C-53 is a step forward on the path of reconciliation. My hope is that you also realize and understand that Métis in British Columbia are missing from this legislation. We have been forgotten. We've been known as the forgotten people for over 100 years. Our rights must be recognized and respected.

Thank you. Maarsii, all my relations.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[Cassidy Caron]

First and foremost, Bill C-53 is not about benefits. It is about the internal governance of these Métis governments.

Citizens have the opportunity to choose who represents them and who delivers programs and services to them. If an individual is satisfied with the governmental structure of the federal government and the provincial government that currently represent them, and they choose not to register as a Métis citizen of Saskatchewan, that is their choice.

If they choose to be represented by the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, again, that is their choice.

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

We had the MMF here a few weeks ago, and I'm sure you were watching. In the context of some of the concerns they raised, they made a comment—which I think we're all aware of. They're in the final stages of treaty negotiations with the Government of Canada for MMF.

My question is actually pretty simple. I'm just curious about your response.

What happens if Bill C-53 doesn't get passed but the MMF treaty does? What does that mean to MNC and the three organizations that we're talking about in this legislation?

[Cassidy Caron]

I absolutely do, because what's really important about article 19 is that “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith” on “measures that will affect them”.

This piece of legislation only affects Métis governments that are named within this piece of legislation. Since Bill C-53 does not impact or affect other indigenous peoples, there was no trigger that required Canada to consult with anybody else on it.

It's really important to know that it only affects those three Métis governments and the collectivities that those three Métis governments are comprised of, and that's exactly what article 19 does. I do think that this bill has met article 19 of UNDRIP.

[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.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Jason, I want to ask you a question. You referred to Bill C-53, stating that it replicates the agreements of the Métis of the Yukon for self-government to implement the bill.

Can you elaborate on that, please?

[Jason Madden]

What we're doing is not replicating the Indian Act, where someone else tells the Métis who they are.

These governments have their own systems based upon a national definition and based upon who they represent. They have objectively verifiable registries.

As I highlighted in my presentation, many of these registries have been reviewed and audited by third parties over the years to make sure that they meet the Powley criteria. Bill C-53 doesn't modify or deal with those citizenship issues. The whole point of Bill C-53 is to recognize the jurisdiction of these governments over their own citizenship, so we don't replicate the Indian Act.

It's built into the self-government agreements. It will ultimately be built into the treaties as well. It's not about Canada taking control or telling Métis people who they are. It's about respecting that these Métis governments can run their own registries and identify their own citizenship.

[Jason Madden]

That depends on how it would be worded.

I think we all know that Bill C-53, as ordinary legislation, can't change the Constitution and can't bestow section 35 rights on groups that may not have them. What Bill C-53 does is recognize governments.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

When we're looking at possible amendments, do you think it's fair to ensure in the language that Bill C-53 can't grant or allow any section 35 rights? Would you think that's a fair amendment?

[Jason Madden]

Absolutely. There's no question about it. That's the law of the land. Bill C-53 doesn't modify the duty to consult set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in any way, shape or form.

[Jason Madden]

Métis have rights because they were pre-existing. Section 35 protects only pre-existing rights. If we have those rights, we have them. You don't bestow them upon us. The ordinary legislation signed in February 2023 can't amend the Constitution.

What this is essentially doing is recognizing you as a government, but it can't create section 35 rights. Ordinary legislation can't do it. We have those rights, because we were here before Canada became Canada, and those are now constitutionally protected.

People are misrepresenting some things: “Oh, you're creating these rights.” You can't create those rights. Those rights are inherent and they flow from people being here prior to Canada becoming Canada. Those rights are constitutionally protected. What Bill C-53 does is recognize these governments in relation to their jurisdictions, citizens, etc.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My question is for Mr. Madden.

You spoke about Bill C-53 not creating any section 35 rights, as written. Can you expand on that a bit?

[Autumn Laing-LaRose]

I think I'm next.

If I may be so frank, I think the only thing missing for the committee members is popcorn, as you facilitate this structure where you're inviting indigenous nations from all over Canada to come and fight each other in this setting.

One of the things I'm thinking about for Bill C-53 is that we're doing a favour for you, essentially, by lumping these three individually distinct governments together, because the fact is that the Métis Nation of Ontario will never back down, and they'll never stop fighting for their self-government recognition and treaty. What Bill C-53 is doing is simply stating the fact that we will begin the process of negotiating.

When it comes to our first nations brothers and sisters—and I mean that quite literally, especially with the demographics here in Saskatchewan—I encourage you to invite President Glen McCallum to speak, because he's been a champion in regard to those relationships with first nations and Métis, especially with the community that he's from. We are quite literally brothers and sisters, or cousins, and family.

When I listen to our Métis elder, who has been invited here to speak, I hear her speak about the love that her parents gave her. That was the strength that allowed her to survive and to be resilient through the harsh realities of residential school. That's what I think is needed. We need to bring back the love to our communities and create space for, yes, open dialogue. Yes, we need to be having these discussions, but we need that love and we need to be ensuring that our elders and our youth are in this space. We need to remember that when we are inviting these people here, we need to do that with love.

Thank you.

[Jason Madden]

I think that's a great question, because that's where reconciliation ultimately needs to get to.

I will just say that I think we need to have understanding and context. I completely understand why the first nations in some places stand up and say that this is unfair, because look at what Canada's colonization project was in relation to them. It was to impose the Indian Act, control their lives from cradle to grave, and implement a status system that is racist and inconsistent with UNDRIP. They've lived through 150-plus years of that and are digging themselves out from under it.

Métis have lived through almost the looking glass of complete denial. “If we ignore you long enough then hopefully you'll go away or get absorbed into the body politic.” Now we're finally coming in to finding our place in Confederation, and we don't have the baggage and the racist legislation of the past holding us back. I get it. I understand. You can see why people.... That division is not of our own making, though, as indigenous peoples. It's because of the history of Canada that this situation has been created.

We need leadership, and for those discussions to happen.... Maybe it needs to be a bumpy ride initially, but at some point in time the discussion has to happen. I have family who are members of first nations. Those relationships run deep. When we go out hunting together, or when we go out on the land together, we're a family, but sometimes these classifications in politics divide and conquer our communities.

I think we need to keep sight of the fact that we have very different stories here, and we have to respect each other's journeys to self-determination and self-government, but one can't trump the other, and we have to sometimes look at it and have that broader discussion.

Bill C-53 is going to have to do that. Treaties will be coming at some point in time with the Métis. Those discussions need to happen with first nations. I hope that they are already, and that they will.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their statements. You have made very important statements. I will have one question for all of you.

Jason, if you could be the first to respond, then Autumn and then Angie.

Since Bill C-53 was drafted, it saddens me to see how it has divided indigenous peoples. It seems like it is bringing about a lot of resentment and division. This bothers me. It saddens me.

I want to encourage you to lean towards solidarity as indigenous peoples—as first nations, Métis nations and Inuit.

How can we stand together in solidarity and support each other?

Jason, you are a lawyer. If you could respond to my question, I would really appreciate it.

Thank you.

[Jason Madden]

I think that some of the fears are the outcome of 150-plus years of ignoring the Métis.

I've spent my life in courtrooms where provincial governments have been taking these positions. Everyone has this Nimbyism—not in my backyard. We even had to go to court in Manitoba to prove that there were Métis there with rights.

It's a challenging discussion, because you've had 150 years of ignoring the Métis and not dealing with them. The answer, based on UNDRIP, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the urging of the court, is not to do nothing and sit on our hands for another 40 years. It's to begin the discussion.

As Autumn says, Bill C-53 is a stepping stone to begin those discussions. If consultations are needed at the treaty stage... There is an important distinction between when consultation is required and when someone else's rights are potentially impacted, but I think some of the commentary that's come out from this about just the absolute denial of Métis existence or cognitive dissonance that the Powley case, which is from Ontario, didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada, is just unhelpful.

We do need to begin that discussion, but I don't think it can come from a place of denial.

I think that, hopefully, through this process, one good thing in the way forward is that those discussions will at least happen. It can't be the rug being pulled out from under the Métis one more time because of concerns.

What absolutely needs to happen is reconciliation with all indigenous peoples. No one gets to go absolutely first, holding back others.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start by thanking the witnesses for their testimony.

Mrs. Crerar, you're a remarkable woman, and your testimony was very touching. Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask a question and give all the witnesses a chance to respond, starting with Ms. Laing‑LaRose.

The first nations representatives who testified before our committee and were opposed to Bill C‑53 had certain concerns. I believe you're familiar with most of their arguments and have heard them.

What arguments would you put forward to allay their concerns and respond to their criticisms of Bill C‑53?

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

Could you clarify this for us? Should this legislation—Bill C-53—pass, what changes, aside from the part about treaty?

[Jason Madden, Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Jason Madden, and I'm a citizen of the Métis nation and a member of a well-known Métis community in northwestern Ontario, which is a part of the Métis nation no matter what map you use.

Over the last 20 years, I've been one of the Métis lawyers who's been in the courtrooms to ensure that the promise of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is finally implemented. I have acted as legal counsel in Métis rights cases in Ontario and southern Manitoba. I was Mr. Goodon's legal counsel in northwest and southwest Saskatchewan and in Alberta. I've appeared in all the Supreme Court of Canada cases dealing with Métis rights.

Before I go into why Bill C-53 is such an important step for the Métis, I want to bring some facts to the committee, because last week there was a lot of misinformation put before you.

Let's be clear. No one's going to tell me, Hayden Stenlund, Jordyn Playne or other Métis that our Métis families and communities don't exist. Just because someone makes a drive-by statement that Métis communities don't exist or cannot exist without their permission doesn't make it so

Let's look at some of the historical facts from my Métis community.

If our ancestors were simply Anishinabe, there would not have been a need for a half-breed adhesion to Treaty No. 3 in 1875. It could have been an Indian adhesion. They made one with Lac Seul in 1874. Nicolas Chatelain, who signed the adhesion, was not an Anishinabe chief. If the half-breed adhesion to Treaty 3 turned half-breeds into Indians, that adhesion would say that. It does not. Read it.

In 1878, Nicolas Chatelain applied for half-breed scrip because, in his own words, Canada was breaking its promises made to the half-breeds at Fort Frances.

These are actual facts. Much of what was said last week ignored these well-documented facts and Métis history. Much of it was deeply offensive and simply untrue. I just want to say that this needs to be said for the Métis people watching this, especially the Métis youth who are watching these hearings.

Would the committee be comfortable with those remarks being made about the Québécois or other unrepresented groups in Canada? I don't think so.

While first nations have an absolute right to be consulted when their own rights and interests are adversely impacted by Crown action, the Métis have absolutely no obligation to consult or seek permission from anyone about our existence as a people and who we are. Anyone can make a broad and unfounded statement before this committee or in a commission report by consultants who aren't even historians that rejects the legal framework in Powley. That doesn't make the objection valid.

I implore the committee to read the Métis perspective section in RCAP or the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Powley. None of this Métis history or the fight for Métis rights is “new”. After 20 years, Powley remains the only Supreme Court of Canada case to confirm the existence of a historic and contemporary Métis community with section 35 rights.

Powley is about the Sault Ste. Marie Métis community, and let's just be clear: It's in north-central Ontario, not the Red River. They didn't rely on facts from the Red River in order to ground that historic community or its existence today. This community did not magically drop from the sky. It's connected to other Métis communities that were situated along old fur trade routes and water routes.

What is new is that Canada has finally begun to recognize and deal with the Métis as it should have in the past and based on the promise of section 35. Since 1982, the Métis have had the rug pulled out from under us several times: the failed constitutional conferences in the 1980s and the rejected Métis nation accord, a part of the Charlottetown accord.

In the 1990s we began to turn to the courts, and we've been successful in much of the litigation, from Powley in 2003 to Daniels in 2016.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that, because of government denial, Métis have been forced to live in a legal lacuna, which means a legal gap that has denied Métis existence and rights. In 2011, the Supreme Court wrote, “The constitutional amendments of 1982...signal that the time has finally come for recognition of the Métis as a unique and distinct people.”

Bill C-53 finally begins to get the Métis out of this legal gap. It's long-overdue recognition, and I also want to emphasize that much of the criticism you've heard about Bill C-53 is not what the bill says when you read it.

First, Bill C-53 recognizes the MNO, MNS and MNA only as indigenous governments, which, to be quite frank, they always have been, regardless of whether Parliament recognizes them as such. Right now, these Métis governments rely on not-for-profit corporations or societies to provide them legal status and capacity, because that's the only option that was available to them.

Bill C-53 simply recognizes the reality that these are already Métis governments. It doesn't create constitutional rights, nor does it recognize any specific Métis communities in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It recognizes the collectivities that mandate these Métis governments.

Secondly, Bill C-53 creates a legislative framework that future self-government treaties can sit comfortably within. I want to highlight that this isn't novel. This legislative model was used in the Yukon implementation agreement from 1994. If you ask some questions, I can point you to this schedule. At that point in time, only four treaties were ratified. Other treaties were brought in by OICs subsequently.

Bill C-53 ensures that the rug can't be pulled out from under the Métis yet again in the future and that section 35 is no longer just words without meaningful implementation. A legislative framework for future treaties is locked in. That's why it's constructed this way.

The legislation also makes it clear that multiple Métis governments represent different Métis collectivities, and each Métis rights holder gets to choose the government that represents them. These governments each have citizenship criteria that are consistent with Powley. This is set out in the self-government agreements. In addition, the registries of these Métis governments have been repeatedly reviewed and audited. Frankly, they've been reviewed more than the Indian Act registry.

To repeat the words of the Supreme Court of Canada, “The time has finally come” to recognize the Métis. Bill C-53 does just that.

[Autumn Laing-LaRose, President, Provincial Métis Youth Council, Minister of Youth, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan]

Thank you so much.

[Witness spoke in indigenous language]

[English]

Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Autumn Laing-LaRose.

I'm joining you today with profound optimism and a sense of purpose as the elected president of the Provincial Métis Youth Council and Minister of Youth for the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan.

First, I want to acknowledge the incredible strides that Métis people have made. Our unique identity has persevered through generations of attempted assimilation and colonialism.

I recently finished my teaching internship in Saskatoon. This took place in a public school that the Métis nation of Saskatchewan partnered with to provide funding and resources for Métis cultural programming and education.

Our grade 8 class hosted a weekly smudge every Monday, where the kindergarten students would come and join us. The first time I was able to participate, this brought tears to my eyes. Because of the work that my Métis government, Métis teachers and elders were doing, Métis children had access to cultural experiences in their classrooms.

Within my own mother's lifetime, children were being removed from their homes and beaten for speaking their language and practising their culture, for just simply being Métis.

The Métis nation is working hard to heal the complex harms experienced by our youth from the loss of culture, language and identity. It is uniquely able to do so because of our inherent right to self-government.

Growing up, my mother worked for a Métis local, which is a core governing body of our Métis nation here in Saskatchewan. When I turned 12, I began volunteering at the children and elders' Christmas suppers that they hosted. At 18, they hired me for my first full-time job. Now I'm 27 and I work alongside them at the Métis Nation Legislative Assembly here in Saskatchewan.

Grassroots Métis governance has played a pivotal role in sustaining our culture, language and history. It is those governing bodies that give us our direction on how we move forward as Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. We have always been here, and it is time for the federal government to do its due diligence.

As Métis citizens of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, we have the ability to vote for our elected leaders and participate in our Métis Nation Legislative Assembly at the age of 16, because we recognize the importance of Métis youth involvement. Our lived experiences, aspirations and concerns help shape the policies and initiatives that our governance structures undertake. When integrating our voices into decision-making, we are creating a more inclusive and representative Métis government that addresses the needs of all of our members.

During the spring of this year we hosted a full-day workshop for youth about UNDRIP, before hosting a two-day conference. During this workshop, youth spoke about holding Canada accountable and wanting fewer band-aid fixes and more things that get to the heart of the issues.

The passing of Bill C-53 will further affirm our inherent right to self-government and directly impact the trajectory of our Métis nation. It acts as a stepping stone towards establishing a modern treaty between the Government of Canada and the Métis nation of Saskatchewan.

A lot of the time I hear that youth are our future. They're not just our future. We are an integral part of our present. Our voices deserve to be heard and our perspectives must be considered when shaping policies that impact our collective well-being. To you this may be just another Tuesday, but for me it means pleading for a better future, one where I know that we're not just taken care of, but the wrongs have been made right.

Members of this committee have the rare ability to change my life forever. When you're wondering who this impacts, remember my face and the faces of those who have spoken to you, like Jordyn Playne and Hayden Stenlund.

My question to you is, will you listen to what Métis youth are saying, or will you give up this opportunity for reconciliation?

Thank you so much.

[Angie Crerar]

I will do everything in my power to ensure they have a better future.

We have come a long way from hiding. Strong leadership, especially from Audrey Poitras, has inspired us to reclaim our voices.

I want to end by telling you the importance of Bill C-53. The bill represents an opportunity to recognize the historical injustices faced by the Métis and our invaluable contribution to Canadian society. It is a chance to heal the wound of the past and build a brighter future for the Métis nation and all of Canada.

I ask for your support for this bill, to honour the resilience of our people.

My father was right when he said, “Someday, someday.” Someday is today, because you are finally ensuring that our rights are recognized and secured for generations to come. I thank you.

[Angie Crerar, Elder, Métis Nation of Alberta]

Today I am filled with gratitude and hope. I'm ready to share my story and the importance of Bill C-53 from the perspective of a proud Métis elder.

I was born in 1936 in Fort Resolution, into a loving Métis family in a small community. I was raised with a profound sense of being loved, wanted, cherished and safe in our home. My parents taught me the importance of kindness and respect for our elders. My father, a man who spoke seven languages and served as interpreter for the RCMP, really inspired me. We shared the moose and we hunted for our neighbours, which taught us the importance of generosity and community support.

My life changed forever when my mother got sick with TB in 1947. The RCMP took me away from my family and my little sisters. We were sent to Fort Resolution for residential school. It was a painful separation. My experiences at the residential school are still etched deep in my memory.

During those dark days, I held onto my father's words, “Some day, some day.” Those words became a guiding light, reminding me to remain hopeful and resilient, no matter the challenges. I always knew who I was, even though we couldn't openly speak about it. My father taught me that “some day” we would have our nation recognized, and our people would stand proud.

We are determined that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will accomplish great things, rooted in their Métis identity. Today, that “some day” is now.

Over the past three years I have witnessed our Métis people coming together, growing stronger and uniting like never before. My heart is proud as I listen to the stories of survivors and elders who have endured so much yet have emerged even stronger.

I, too, am a survivor. I'm witness to the unbreakable spirit of our people. The memories of the horrors I experienced still haunt me. Since then, I have always been afraid of being hidden away and silenced.

We have almost lost our Métis nation, but we are determined to ensure that our children thrive. The time has come for our Métis people to be recognized as the nation we have always been, as we rightfully deserve.

I live in Grande Prairie, which is a community where my healing has been supported. I am blessed with 11 children, 22 grandchildren and 16 great-grandchildren. They are my life.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start by thanking today's witnesses for their testimony.

Mr. Benoit, the Conservatives have already raised this issue, and I know you're not in favour of Bill C‑53. I'm curious about what kind of amendments could be made that would make it acceptable to you. As I understand it, your position isn't necessarily irreconcilable, but you feel there's still a lot of work to do.

I'd really like you to elaborate on that.

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

Okay.

Rather than eliminating MNO from Bill C-53.... You mentioned earlier that no parliamentary approval.... I agree that's a concern. Only cabinet has the approval of a treaty, which, among most parliamentarians, is raising some eyebrows.

However, would having that parliamentary approval be something that could ease some of your concerns, while keeping MNO in?

[William Goodon]

Absolutely. Take MNO out of Bill C-53.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here today to be able to ask my questions.

I am proud that it is our International Inuit Day today and that we are taking part in it.

First, I want to ask Ken this. You are super educators yourself and you have experienced being sent to school and colonialized. In reading all your material, this is what you have informed us of. Now, considering your knowledge and your education, when you are negotiating to have your self-government and when you state that Bill C-53 is not a bill to claim lands, what I'm asking is, if you were to get your self-government, would you be able to go forward without any lands?

[Dr. Ken Coates]

I'll be very brief. If you don't do appropriate consultations—and that question about “appropriate” is extremely important—you're going to be facing all sorts of conflicts and stuff down the line.

You have to get to a point, not with perfect resolution.... There will always be people having differences of opinion about everything from land and resources to rights and things of that sort, but you have to have a clear process whereby people have been allowed to speak their piece and you've heard what people had to say.

What I like about the Bill C-53 process—and there are some problems that people have identified—is that it actually transfers a lot of the responsibility for that consultation and, hopefully, the resources, to the Métis nations to let the individual groups do a lot of those discussions, because those are where the most important resolutions will actually occur.

[Al Benoit]

Yes. All I'll add is that “duty to consult” is about the impacting of rights.

The unfortunate part about the way Bill C-53 is structured is that this consultation on a treaty happens at some unknown period of time in the future. That's why we think it's important that in the legislation it says that the duty to consult needs to be done when these treaties are being done.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that says there is going to be a duty to consult. People talk about it, but there's nothing in law or in the legislation that says it has to be done. We are doing duty to consult with the first nations and the Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and others.

I know that recently you had someone come to the committee and say that Canada is not doing any consultations with the first nations in Manitoba. There was a 45-day period, firstly, and then it was extended another 30 days for consultation in Manitoba. Someone saying the Manitoba Métis and Government of Canada are not consulting.... We've done it internally, and it's being done externally.

[William Goodon]

Mr. Benoit has been instrumental in the work with our self-government agreements and treaty. I'm going to let him express that. My understanding of the duty to consult is that when section 35 rights could be affected—not will be, or are—there is a trigger that happens for the duty to consult. I know that the Chiefs of Ontario are absolutely correct in that their section 35 treaty rights could be affected, so there needs to be some discussion with them.

Canada seems to have learned its lesson when it asked us to do our self-government agreement and treaty. We were literally on the road across the country, doing extensive consultations and talking to Red River Métis from Toronto to Vancouver, all over Manitoba and throughout the homeland. Not only that, but it was my understanding that there were some time periods that Canada needed in order to consult with the Métis Nation of Alberta, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and the first nation leadership in Manitoba. They were able to find time and the ability to consult on our treaty, but apparently there wasn't that same ability to consult on Bill C-53.

[Al Benoit]

I think what's important is that the legislation is silent. It doesn't reference what's inside a future treaty, and it doesn't make specific reference to the contents of any previous agreements. There are the 2023 agreements from February of this year. They're self-government agreements. It's mentioned in the preamble that they contemplate a treaty, but they don't use that to say what the treaties are going to be about. There is nothing that says this legislation is about land, but it doesn't say it's really about citizenship. It doesn't say it's about governance structure. It doesn't say it's about elections. It's completely silent in the legislation, because it doesn't refer to a specific table of contents for the treaty, or a table of contents of a previous agreement.

These possible future treaties are blank sheets of paper. What Bill C-53 does is give the executive and these three groups unrestricted pens with which they can write new constitutional instruments or treaties—but unrestricted.

If we were doing an analogy, I think the recommendations would be to put some lines on the page—and this is the way it's always been—so we know what is being coloured in. Is land part of it?

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

Thank you for that.

Let me just back the train up a bit and ask you a hypothetical question. It's quite simple, actually. If the Government of Canada had asked you, say, back in 2017 what an appropriate direction would be to take on a bill like Bill C-53 that would lessen the concerns for other rights holders, what would you have offered as a response?

I think you probably get my context. We've heard some really significant concerns about the lack of consultation, even when first nation leaders have asked to be included in the discussions.

If you were to have given some advice, say, a few years ago, what would that advice have been?

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

To Mr. Benoit's point.... I'm not going to ask you about recommendations right now, because my time is so limited and I want to ask Mr. Coates some questions, but be aware that you can provide those recommendations to us in writing as a submission, and we would be happy to take those if we don't get to them in the discussions. Thanks for that.

Mr. Coates, thank you for being here today as well. I know you're a man with great knowledge and expertise. I think you've heard the concerns that were expressed in prior meetings, and you heard today about this very unique process that was put before us in Bill C-53. Unless you correct me, I believe it is a fact that this has never been the process used in any prior indigenous self-government legislation. The fact is that it could be approved by cabinet or by an order in council, rather than having to come back to Parliament. There's a lot at stake in this.

I'm curious to hear your comments about that, or about whether you have any concerns with that process, which has been included and identified by so many people so far.

[Al Benoit, Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Good evening, everyone.

On October 26, witnesses to this committee stated, “We deserve to advance in reconciliation, just like all other indigenous people”, and “consistent with how other indigenous self-government legislation has been considered.” They also said, “Bill C-53 is only about matters that are internal to our Métis self-government”. However, the text of Bill C-53 is inconsistent with these statements.

Firstly, there are no provisions limiting future treaties to self-government or internal matters. Secondly, Bill C-53 allows future treaties to circumvent parliamentary procedure, which is inconsistent with the treaty ratification legislation and processes applying to all other indigenous peoples. Contrary to Bill C-53, the right and proper process for modern treaties has been, since 1975, for the treaties to be negotiated, initialled and ratified by the indigenous people, signed by the parties, and then presented to Parliament. This allows Parliament to know what is in a treaty before it passes legislation and gets royal assent.

A recent example that came before this committee is the Self-Government Treaty Recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation Act, which received royal assent on June 22 of this past summer. The Whitecap Dakota Nation completed their treaty before legislation was introduced, not afterwards. Similarly, our soon-to-be-completed Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty will come before Parliament, together with its ratification legislation. You will have our treaty in your hand.

Bill C-53 is an unprecedented transfer of constitutional authority from Parliament to the executive. Parliament will have no further oversight or approval role in the treaty ratification. In a reversal of practice, Bill C-53 would create a troubling precedent for entering into future treaties.

Clause 5, clause 6 and clause 7 are the heart of the problem. They empower the Governor in Council to give a treaty force and effect, to acquire constitutional protection, and to give it priority over all other federal law, if it meets certain unknown requirements. There is no indication in the legislation as to what requirements, standards or criteria have to be met for the treaty to be approved. What are the contents of the treaty? What could they be? What will they be?

There is also no indication of whether subject matter must be limited to internal self-government alone. Also, one question—for which there is no indication as to what an answer might be—is this: Why is Parliament being blocked from reviewing a treaty while approving its ratification legislation? As my father would say, “That is backasswards.”

If the committee feels it is right, we will suggest recommendations during our responses to questions.

In summary, with Bill C-53, Parliament is being asked to blindly approve future, unknown, yet to be written yet constitutionally protected treaties without Parliament ever seeing them.

Thank you.

[Dr. Ken Coates, Chair, Indigenous Governance Program, Yukon University, As an Individual]

I'm really honoured to be here, to have a chance to speak to the committee on an issue that I think is vital. It addresses one of the most important and long-standing gaps in indigenous rights and recognition in Canada.

I have some observations to offer and to put it in context, I guess.

Like most major indigenous policies, Bill C-53 is seeking to address a historical injustice. At some point we will get to a situation in which we're no longer having to look backward to fix the problems of Confederation, and we will look more creatively to the future.

At the time of Confederation, the Government of Canada recognized that it had to deal with the Métis. They weren't particularly happy about that. They did so, both as a distinct people and as part of the rapidly-changing society in western Canada.

At the time, the Métis were very highly regarded for their business acumen, their connections to both the newcomer and indigenous worlds, and their military prowess.

The federal government of Canada dealt with the Métis in the creation of the province of Manitoba, which was a process that did not end well for the Métis, unfortunately. They made scrip arrangements that recognized their rights to the land, but that was not managed very well. They confronted the Métis during the 1885 resistance period.

After the defeat of the Métis in 1885, the Government of Canada effectively refused to deal with the Métis as a political entity or a collective. This approach held for generations, despite frequent representations by the Métis for greater recognition by the government.

The population was dispersed for a variety of economic and social reasons. It moved to northern and western districts quite comprehensively.

Due to the lack of legal status and recognized rights as indigenous people, the Métis avoided some of the interventions that were so strongly and negatively affecting first nations people, although some Métis children were still required to attend residential schools, and they had to deal with widespread economic and social discrimination. They also lived without formal recognition of their existence as a political community.

It is to the credit of the Métis politicians and leaders that they continued their activism in subsequent years, which resulted eventually in their inclusion in the political debates over indigenous rights in the 1960s and 1970s. It also resulted in their inclusion in the patriated Canadian Constitution in 1982.

Since that time, the Métis have been working very hard, through a variety of legal and political means, to get the attention of Métis governments where section 35 of the Constitution did not result in immediate resolutions.

Court decisions gradually expanded the recognition of Métis rights. Bill C-53 is a long-overdue recognition of the existence of Métis as a rights-bearing political group and, therefore, a key element in the national and cultural fabric of Canada.

I offer a couple of other quick observations.

This recognition is a matter of global significance. We follow, around the world, the battle for the rights of indigenous people and for attention to their particular needs. The unique struggle of cultures that emerged out of the contact experience has largely been ignored. This is an important step in that regard.

The second point is that Bill C-53 capitalizes on the collective national learning from over 50 years of negotiating modern treaties and restructuring constitutionally protected partnerships. We got started in this process by negotiating very complicated—and what they thought were final—comprehensive agreements, but after more than 30 to 40 years, those agreements have been signed but not fully implemented.

That process was remarkable in that time and very appropriate. This approach is quite different. I appreciate the effort of the government and the Métis nations to do this.

It starts with a very simple and important element. We're seeing official and high-profile recognition of the Métis nations as political communities. Rather than trying to resolve all the things in a package, as happened with the modern treaties in the Canadian north, they have been working on a more foundational level. It's establishing recognition as a starting point and then allowing Métis nations to work on self-government agreements that will deal much more directly and specifically with the practical details of governance.

Bill C-53 establishes a foundation upon which the country can redefine and rebuild its relationships with the Métis.

It is a bold and, I think, valuable innovation. It will be followed by the Métis nations developing and expanding their Métis services and programs. There's actually a lot of work to be done. One of the most important pieces will be defining their relationships with individual Métis groups and with first nations more generally.

This is the start of a process. It is not the end. It establishes a foundation and recognition. There will be challenges, to be sure, on everything from boundaries to citizenship, membership and things of that sort. At least it's a vital step in the right direction, adding to and encouraging the development of Métis constitutions and Métis national governments. This process is exciting, dynamic and very important.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[Jason Batise, Executive Director, Wabun Tribal Council]

Good afternoon, committee. Thank you for accepting my application to speak today.

My name is Jason Batise. I'm the executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council in Timmins. I represent six first nations in northeastern Ontario.

I'm here today because Canada hasn't consulted us about Bill C-53 and has told us it is none of our business. The impacts to our land and way of life make it our business. Legitimate Métis groups should have their rights protected, but this is not what this bill does. The bill opens the door for a wave of illegitimate claims to alleged Métis rights across Ontario.

The focus of the Wabun Tribal Council and our communities is on protecting our people and lands, which we have occupied since time immemorial. One key way Wabun communities have been doing that is through economic development and reconciliatory action with industry. We are probably subject to the most intensive mining exploration activity in the country. We currently have 10 mines operating within our traditional lands, with three new mines now in development. We also deal with over 80 mineral development exploration permits on a daily basis.

In Wabun territory, we've created a model that works for both first nations and industry, providing benefits for our communities and for all Ontarians. Bill C-53 would severely disrupt our relationship with industry by allowing MNO to create illegitimate communities with section 35 rights on our territory—illegitimate groups that are already demanding that industry pay them for impacts to our land.

Aboriginal rights do not exist in the abstract. They are tied to the land. Canada should not be creating a treaty process for entities that don't have legitimate entitlement. The claim that there are Powley-compliant communities in our territory is ludicrous. MNO keeps repeating the mantra that it has Powley-compliant, independent registry processes. That's false. It can't comply with Powley, because those alleged historic communities never existed. Bill C-53 would recognize the alleged Métis communities in our territory as section 35 rights holders, but we know they aren't. We know this because it's our land. We've been here for thousands of years.

We also know this because we did the research. We hired leading experts to examine the claims of the group in our territory. It shows very clearly that the claims of the MNO communities in the Wabun territory are simply false. We've forwarded it to the committee, but you can also find it on our website. We have nothing to hide. The Red River Métis have called these MNO communities fraudulent, fabricated and not part of the Métis nation, so it's not just us saying so. It's the Métis nation of Manitoba and the Red River people. The Métis National Council itself is starting an expert panel process to investigate the legitimacy of the MNO claims.

We as first nations know everything about our lands. It is not credible that we never noticed a whole other group of distinct indigenous people living where we live. We cannot understand why Canada is dismissing first nations' concerns. Canada refuses to talk to us meaningfully or to disclose any information about the legal basis for the bill.

We also have concerns about the way the bill is drafted. If you look at clause 8 and the schedule of the bill, there is no definition, apparent restriction or clarity on the “Métis collectivity” being recognized in Ontario, other than that MNO gets to decide. This is not like giving first nations control over membership, which we don't have. It's like giving the AFN or the Chiefs of Ontario the power to unilaterally create new first nations. Canada brushes off our concerns with “Don't worry about it. This is just about internal matters.”

The bill creates a treaty process for MNO. This is about land. MNO's representatives have looked me right in the eye and told me the land next to my home community of Matachewan First Nation is theirs. They challenged us on our treaty land entitlement claim and asked us to allow them to use our land because it is theirs. MNO has already been making aggressive demands in our territory, attempting to delay projects we already consented to in order to extract outrageous demands for benefits agreements from industry. Margaret Froh is on record saying there can be no electricity transmission development in Ontario without equity participation for MNO.

The long-term consequences of this bill will be catastrophic for our communities and for industry. Once MNO has a legal platform, there will be a massive increase in the financial burden on industry in terms of the cost of doing consultation with an illegitimate group, the cost of accommodating MNO's demands and the likelihood of extensive litigation by MNO. Canada is sowing the seeds of generations of unnecessary conflict by refusing to consult with us.

Canada has not thought through the consequences of this. If our treaty partner thinks it can unilaterally change the promises it made to us in Treaty No. 9 and give away rights to an illegitimate group, then you have another think coming. You don't understand what you're doing, and we implore you to pause this legislation and talk to us about it.

Meegwetch.

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick]

Okay.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfilment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee on behalf of the treaty land entitlement first nations regarding the significant delays caused by Canada's decision to consult with the Métis before adding land to first nations reserves. Crown land selections, including Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation's Crown land parcels, have been held up by the Métis claim of land use. If treaties are made with the Métis, there will be further conflict.

Second, Bill C-53 may impact first nations' rights through the attempt to legislate the recognition of treaties that have not yet been entered into with Métis collectives. Several first nations in Manitoba have traditional territories that span into what is now Ontario and Saskatchewan—two provinces directly contemplated by Bill C-53. Provincial boundaries have been established in an arbitrary manner that does not consider first nations' sovereignty and land rights, which long predate the creation of Canada and its provinces.

First nations have received no indication from Canada that their voices will be heard in the development process of proposed Métis treaties to ensure that they have not infringed on first nations' rights. Lack of future first nations consultation is likely, given that there will be no consultation of first nations in Manitoba in relation to the Red River Métis treaty. As I speak, this has not happened to this day. There was never any consultation with any of the PTOs in the province of Manitoba.

First nations in Manitoba have been waiting for more than a century to have their treaties respected, honoured and implemented by Canada. As our treaty partner, Canada should be focused on fulfilling its outstanding promises rather than entering into other treaties without our knowledge and consent. Until our sacred treaties are fully honoured, no other group should trust that Canada will honour any new treaties.

For these reasons, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs strongly opposes Bill C-53. We ask you, our treaty partner, to ensure that Bill C-53 is not passed.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Thank you so much.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the opportunity to speak to you on the subject matter of Bill C-53.

In my presentation today, I will discuss the impact of Bill C-53 on first nations' individual and collective rights. Through my remarks, I wish to convey the tremendous concern that the first nations in Manitoba have about the federal government's disregard for the inherent and treaty rights of first nations. Given the time restraints, I will refer you to my written brief for additional concerns about the bill's adherence to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Prior to European contact, first nations existed on the lands now known as Canada since time immemorial with our own unique laws and rights derived from the Creator. First nations in Manitoba have since exercised their own sovereignty alongside the Crown's assumed sovereignty through negotiated treaties and in respect of our sovereign nationhood.

Métis people, many of whom are our relatives, arose after contact with the Europeans. Unlike first nations, they have not existed on these lands since time immemorial with their own laws and nationhood. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged the distinction between first nations and Métis section 35 rights, further details of which are also provided in my written brief.

In proposing Bill C-53, your government is supporting Métis colonization and continuing a long history of ignoring first nations' rights. Bill C-53 is simply another method by which the Canadian government continues the colonization project against first nations.

Any claim that Bill C-53 will not impact first nations' rights is incorrect in two respects.

First is the overly broad characterization of Métis rights set out in precursor agreements that will be recognized by Bill C-53, which reference a historic Métis nation homeland, which includes all the land that is now Manitoba. This has the potential to unjustly recognize Métis as rights holders in first nations' treaty and traditional territories, where they have no connection or rights.

All first nations in Manitoba have entered into treaties with the Crown, which are the numbered treaties, or pre-Confederation treaties, entered into with the Dakota nations. A key component of the numbered treaties was a solemn commitment to set aside reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of first nations, and the right to harvest on treaty territories.

To this day, the Crown's treaty obligation to set aside reserve lands for first nations in Manitoba remains unfulfilled. First nations continue to have difficulty or are prohibited from exercising their full treaty harvesting rights. Bill C-53 would impede the ability of first nations to have their treaty obligations fulfilled.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfillment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here today.

What you're talking about is very important to all of us, because we are indigenous peoples. I feel what you feel, and I understand this is a struggle for all of us. If our lands were to be managed by people other than ourselves, it wouldn't be right, so it is good to hear what you have to say today.

As it is today, Bill C-53 proposes to recognize the rights of the Métis nation. The Métis nation wants to have its rights recognized. You, as first nations, and we Inuit have our rights. The Métis nation wants to have the same rights as first nations.

Can you tell us whether you believe the Métis nation has its own rights? Are they included among the indigenous people of Canada? Are they identified in UNDRIP? Can you please elaborate?

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

Meegwetch for the question.

There's no clear historic evidence that there was a separate Métis nation in Manito Aki. That's Grand Council Treaty No. 3. We have never known a historic and separate Métis community within Manito Aki. We have never consented to the establishment of their narrative in the 1875 adhesion. We also never consented to the Indian Act and the creation of this group of non-status Anishinabe, some of whom found refuge in taking on a claimed Métis identity.

It is important to ensure that colonial laws stop acting as a means to cut off non-status individuals from rightful belonging, but Bill C-53 is not the right way to do it. In fact, it's a dangerous and unprincipled way forward. It is inconsistent with our treaty relationship, and I would say unconstitutional by Canada's standards. Those people are Anishinabe, and their hearts and their minds will tell them if they are truly indigenous and live within the indigenous law, like we do as Anishinabe.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you all for being here. I very much appreciate it.

Let me tell the others of the committee that much of my riding is the traditional territory of Treaty No. 3. NAN's headquarters are in my riding as well, and lots of people from NAN communities live either part time or full time in Thunder Bay. The only one missing is Fort William First Nation, which I'm pretty sure has the exact same perspective on this issue.

Let me say that my perspective on this bill will largely reflect what your positions and your viewpoints are on this, so I'm very eager to hear what you have to say on this.

With that in mind, I have a question for Grand Chief Kavanaugh.

I understand from your opening remarks that there's a concern within the Anishinabe nation of Treaty No. 3 that the Métis Nation of Ontario has gained momentum, at least in part, from the problem of non-status Indians created by the Indian Act, where essentially the non-status individuals have been able to take on the identity of Métis in order to access rights such as hunting and fishing.

Can you help me understand better how this relates to Bill C-53? You already kind of mentioned it. Am I wrong that you seem to be saying that if you could determine your own membership, you would rather have a lot of these people, who are claiming to be Métis, incorporated as part of Treaty No. 3 nation?

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Oji-Cree]

[English]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be back here on the unceded, unsurrendered lands of the Algonquin nation.

My name's Alvin Fiddler, and I'm the grand chief for Nishnawbe Aski Nation, one of the PTOs in what is now called Ontario. It's one of the largest PTOs in the country, covering almost two-thirds of the province of Ontario. There are three distinct languages in NAN: Cree in the eastern side, Oji-Cree to the west, and Ojibwa in the central south area.

I stand before you today to reiterate our position, which we set out in a letter we sent to Minister Anandasangaree, the new CIRNAC minister, on October 10. The message in that letter was clear. It was to ask Canada to withdraw Bill C-53 and to say it is reckless for Canada to rush through this legislation without meaningfully engaging with first nations, ensuring there is a proper basis for what Canada is doing and getting a thorough understanding of the consequences.

Canada's current attempt to force through Bill C-53 will do nothing but damage first nations' rights for generations to come, and I am here to tell you it is likely to cause damage to our relationship with you. The Métis Nation of Ontario has repeatedly made public statements and demands to our communities that it intends to impose itself on first nation lands and displace our rights. Given that reality, which Canada is choosing to ignore, what choice will we have? Giving aboriginal and treaty rights to groups on our territories that do not have a legitimate entitlement to rights diminishes those rights.

What we're asking for is transparency and meaningful consultation. We are also asking that you do proper due diligence on MNO's claims.

I want to be very clear: We're not here to oppose the legitimate rights of the Métis people as set out by rigorous legal test, for example in the Powley case. We support their aspirations in seeking to correct the historical injustices they faced and the processes established to get there. We have no issues with that.

What we are opposed to, however, are the six new illegitimate Métis communities in Ontario as represented by the MNO. The recognition of these communities is baseless, non-factual and not supported by genealogical evidence. One of the six, the Abitibi Inland Historic Métis Community, is deemed to be situated in Treaty No. 9 territory. This community does not exist. The neighbouring communities and elders have never seen such a community. I would invite you as members of this committee and ministers to visit this community—you will not find it. It's a fictional community simply designed to assert rights that are non-existent. I wanted to bring an elder here with me today to testify to this, but because of the short notice, he wasn't able to be here.

There are a number of other things we have issues with relating to this bill: one, the territorial rights assertion of Métis rights; two, future treaties with the Métis have been discussed by members of this government; three, undefined references to concepts such as mobility rights and activities incidental to harvesting.

In the last 15 seconds I have, I want to say that I hope you read all this material that we've given to you, and I hope you recognize how colonial this is, that you're sitting up there contemplating giving recognition to another group that is not legitimate in our view—at least the settlements they're claiming in our territory are not. We do have treaties—I brought the treaty documents with me—that were signed by my ancestors and your ancestors. That's the relationship we want to maintain.

Meegwetch. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh, Grand Council Treaty No. 3]

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin]

[English]

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. My name is Francis Kavanaugh. I am from Naotkamegwanning First Nation, and I am the ogichidaa or grand chief of Grand Council Treaty No. 3.

I am honoured to be appearing before you today to raise concerns of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3 regarding Bill C-53.

Grand Council Treaty No. 3 is the traditional government of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3. This includes 26 first nations in northwestern Ontario and two first nations in southeastern Manitoba. We are a nation with a common language, Anishinaabemowin. We have a shared creation story of the larger group of Anishinabe peoples living on Turtle Island, which is thousands of years old, and a migration story of how we came to be a nation at the height of land where the waters flow north into the Arctic watershed. This may be as long ago as 1200 A.D.

There are many concerning aspects of this bill that could be discussed. My focus today is on the concerns that relate directly to Treaty No. 3.

From our perspective, this bill must not pass. Seen in the context of previous agreements between Canada and the Métis Nation of Ontario, this bill provides a legislative pathway to reopening Treaty No. 3 without our involvement, let alone our consent. This bill is premised on a rewriting of history within our homeland, Manito Aki. It creates new section 35 rights within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty No. 3, absent of any historical or factual underpinning for such bestowal.

On misunderstandings of Treaty No. 3, we have several struggles with the Métis Nation of Ontario and their claims to represent some of the descendants of Treaty No. 3. These are based on narratives around an 1875 adhesion to Treaty No. 3. The misrepresentation stems from a racially problematic word used to describe mixed-blood Anishinabe. I’m talking here about the term “half-breed”. To be clear, Treaty No. 3 is only between two peoples, the British and the Anishinabe, in the presence of the Creator.

Euro-Canadians, believing in racial superiority, described our mixed Anishinabe kin as “half-breeds” only because they had the promise of white blood. British policy allowed these mixed Anishinabe to work in fur trade posts for salaries.

This is fact one: There were individuals with actual Métis cultural connection who intermarried with the Anishinabe well after 1873, and 1873 is a key date for the Powley case, developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have several modern-day citizens of the Anishinabe nation with a diversity of racial backgrounds. We are an inclusive nation and have been so because we have our own citizenship laws.

This is fact two: The Indian Act has caused many problems, including the issue we have today. So-called “half-breeds” in 1873 were affirmed as Anishinabe in 1875 because of Treaty No. 3 and the Anishinabe’s citizenship customs and law. This 1875 adhesion to treaty is sometimes called the “half-breed adhesion”.

Then the Indian Act produced non-status Indians in the 20th century because of Euro-Canadian views of caste and race and policies of enfranchisement. These colonial policies have separated our families for far too long, alienating our kin who do not have status under racist and exclusionary Indian Act provisions.

The Grand Council Treaty No. 3 would like to have the same powers of citizenship that we have exercised since time immemorial. Contrast our long fight for self-determination with that of the so-called Métis in Ontario. In the 1990s, we start seeing our Anishinabe but non-status kin—kin who lost status because of enfranchisement and discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that have repeatedly been found unconstitutional—turning to Métis groups for hunting and fishing rights and belonging.

If we had the means, we may have been capable of helping them with their fight for justice to keep their status and membership in our first nations, but we did not have the means in the 1990s. Our poverty forced us to be on the sidelines as these individuals fought for status and resigned themselves to using their great-grandparents' half-breed identity to belong to the Métis groups.

These so-called half-breeds were not part of a distinct Métis community; they were part of the Anishinabe nation, as affirmed during treaty negotiations in the 1873 adhesion to Treaty No. 3.

[Chief Scott McLeod, Nipissing First Nation, Chiefs of Ontario]

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

Aanin kina wiya. Zoongaabwi ndizhnikaaz. Nbiising ndoonjibaa. Shagi ndoodem.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hello, everyone. Zoongabwi is my name. Nipissing First Nation is where I’m from. I am Crane clan.

[English]

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Chief Scott McLeod of Nipissing First Nation.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about Bill C-53.

I'm proud to stand here today with our regional chief, grand chiefs and leadership in the name of protecting first nations' inherent and treaty-protected rights. I want to echo the regional chief's comments that first nations in the Ontario region support the legitimate claims of indigenous peoples but note that the recognition of unfounded claims undermines legitimate and inherent rights holders.

I'm here on behalf of the first nations of the Ontario region to voice our concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario being recognized as section 35 rights holders in Bill C-53. We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn until there is proper due diligence on the part of Canada to verify whom the Métis Nation of Ontario represents.

The communities represented by the MNO did not exist historically. We have been saying this for decades. The communities did not exist historically. They do not meet the legal criteria set out in Powley and, therefore, cannot have section 35 rights.

Section 35 is to protect the rights of indigenous groups that existed on the land prior to the establishment of Canada. Section 35 is about protecting the rights of pre-existing nations on the land that they occupied. We now have academic research that demonstrates that the so-called MNO historic communities did not exist.

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin, a treaty-level organization representing the 21 first nations of the Robinson Huron Treaty, signed the treaty in 1850 and recently released a report titled “An Exploratory Study of Métis Nation of Ontario’s 'Historic Métis Communities' in Robinson-Huron Treaty Territory”. The report examined the MNO's own documentation in their verified Métis family lines report. These are public to check if the so-called communities met the criteria set out with Powley.

The MNO is reimagining family lines and manipulating census records to create a history that never happened in our territories.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, in order for a Métis community to qualify as having section 35 rights, it must have their own distinct language, culture, customs and family descendants living in a given geographic area for multiple generations prior to the effective European control.

The findings in this report demonstrate that the MNO Métis root ancestors and their descendants are not recorded in the Métis community prior to effective control. The MNO so-called Métis root ancestors are not primarily identified as Métis in the historical records, and many of the Métis root ancestors are never identified as Métis in the historical record.

I would like to take a moment to examine the MNO's McLeod-Riel verified Métis line. It provides us with an example of an important regional Anishinabe family that the MNO has transformed into a Métis family for Killarney.

We will focus on one individual, Gregor McGregor, a Métis root ancestor descendant. Please bear with me. I will be speaking about the census records, as this is what the MNO uses to form the foundation of its so-called historic communities. Gregor was listed as Scotch and living with his parents and younger sister in the 1881 census for Killarney. The four of them are the only ones on the census pages for Killarney not listed as Indian.

Ten years later, in 1891, Gregor was listed with his wife and their two children as French Canadian in Killarney. The family appears to be living exclusively among the Anishinabe families again. In 1901, Gregor, Véronique, their four children and his parents living next door are listed at the Whitefish reservation on Birch Island, today known as Whitefish River First Nation, as a French breed under “Colour”, and Chippewa Canadian under “Racial or Tribal Origins”. They are all recorded as speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with the five of the six remaining households listed on the census page.

Ten years later, again, in 1911, Gregor, Véronique and their now eight children were listed at the Whitefish River Indian reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with 27 other individuals on the same page of the census. Ten years later, in 1921, Gregor, Véronique and five of their children were once again listed on the Whitefish River reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with everybody else on the census page.

What all of this tells us is that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of McLeod-Riel Métis root ancestors were all integral members of the regional Anishinabe communities and there was no distinct Métis community there. According to public documentation produced in February 2023, Gregor McGregor and Véronique's descendants continued to be a significant presence in the Whitefish River First Nation, and those with the McGregor last name represent over 16% of the 730 adult citizens we all know today as the McGregors from Whitefish.

This is whom the MNO is claiming to represent, and they have people signing up to be members today who will benefit from section 35 rights based on being a descendant of Gregor McGregor.

This is only a glimpse into the findings of this report. There are many more examples just like this one. I have included this report as part of my submission for today's appearance. I sincerely hope you will take the time to review the information and findings while this committee studies Bill C-53. This is why first nations in Ontario and across Canada, the Manitoba Métis Federation and even the governing members of the Métis National Council all have serious concerns about the MNO's claims that they represent people who come from the historic Métis communities. No MNO should be recognized in Bill C-53.

Also, I will add to that Jean Teillet's report, which represents the firm—

[Grand Chief Glen Hare]

Good day, everybody.

Thank you for the introduction. I welcome being here with you all today. I'm Ontario regional chief Glen Hare, from Manitoulin Island.

Chiefs of Ontario is a first nations political and advocacy organization that represents 133 first nations in the Ontario region. I am proud to hold the office of regional chief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-53 here today. As I am sure you all know, there is a high level of interest from first nations to participate in the study of this bill. That is because of the massive impact we believe Bill C-53 will have on first nations rights. Those rights were given to us by the Creator, and they are very sacred to us.

Our primary concern is that the Métis Nation of Ontario is one of the groups included in this proposed legislation that will be recognized as having section 35 rights. The MNO has been asserting that they have historic Métis communities that completely overlap with our ancestral and treaty territories. Our leadership and elders assert that those communities never existed, or else they would remember them. The MNO is claiming a history on our lands that never happened.

If passed, this legislation will set a dangerous precedent. The MNO will be emboldened to keep asserting land rights and jurisdiction in our territories, in our consultations and in our agreements.

First nations continue to be left completely in the dark about the factual and legal basis for the recognition of MNO communities. We were not consulted at all throughout this entire process about the assignment of aboriginal rights to a group making assertions in our ancestral and treaty territories. This is going to impact our rights, so it's very much our business.

We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn. We are urging parliamentarians to take our concerns seriously and stop this process before further irreparable damage is done.

We came to Ottawa twice for peaceful demonstrations opposing the passing of Bill C-53. That was in both June and September of this year. We were joined by hundreds of family and community members, first nations youth, elders, knowledge-keepers, drummers, dancers, grassroots people, technicians and first nation leadership from Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, as well as the interim national chief. All were there to oppose the passing of this bill. People travelled hours to attend these demonstrations. Our rights are of the utmost importance to our people.

Second, I know my time is limited, but I think it's really important for this committee to know that it's not only Ontario first nations that are opposing the passing of this bill. We have absolutely taken a unified stance in Ontario on this issue. You can see that here today. You have the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski and Anishinabe nations, Grand Council Treaty No. 3, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, independent and unaffiliated first nations, and the Wabun and Matawa tribal councils. The Ontario region is very large. We do not always agree on everything, but this is something we've all come together on because it is so important. As I said, it's not just us. First nations across the country are worried about the impacts of this bill.

In July, at the Assembly of First Nations annual general assembly in Halifax, the chiefs in assembly unanimously passed a resolution entitled “Protect First Nations Rights and Interests from Unfounded Métis Rights Assertions”. First nations in every province and territory agree that this bill cannot pass. We have also received support from the Manitoba Métis Federation, which shares our concerns with the MNO's claims, stating, “Bill C-53 Rewards Indigenous Identity Theft”.

False claims to indigenous identity are not just some phenomenon happening in academia and the arts. This is it right here, in action, and this legislation, this House and this government will enable these false claims.

I see that the card has gone up already. I would like to close.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

No, we didn't create the issue with the Métis. Within the Indian Act...infant tribesmen, women losing status when they married a non-indigenous person. That's where the Métis issue came about within our area.

It's up to Canada to resolve this Métis issue in another way, but don't use first nations again. You're putting the fault on first nations if this Métis Bill C-53 does not come about. We're not the ones at fault. It's the Government of Canada, and you have to resolve it yourself.

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

What position would you have taken had you been consulted on Bill C‑53 beforehand?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Desjarlais, you said that Bill C‑53 would create two tiers of governments.

Do you think the interests of first nations and the claims of Métis have to be at odds with one another?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We are fairly off topic from the intent of this meeting, which is to study Bill C-53.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I'm going to go to Mr. Desjarlais first.

What do you think this bill puts in place? It's not necessarily clear to me. There seems to be several levels of government. You have a treaty partner. On the indigenous side, you have the AFN, and then you may have something down to, say, a community association.

The Government of Canada wants to enter into a relationship with a number of bodies across the country here. Where would you peg Bill C-53, placing the Métis Nation of Alberta, for example, in that hierarchy of self-government?

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

About two weeks ago, Mr. Desjarlais, you met with Minister Anandasangaree to express your opposition to Bill C‑53, among other things. You urged the minister to go back to the drawing board and carry out proper consultations.

What should those consultations look like?

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

I certainly agree with that.

Reconciliation is being set back under this legislation, and trust is going to be lost. It's so unfortunate, but it seems to me that it's underhanded of the Liberal government to try to force this upon us as first nations. Certainly reconciliation, as far as I am concerned, is dead because of the introduction of Bill C-53.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My question is for both witnesses. The passage of Bill C‑53 could undermine current efforts to advance reconciliation with first nations. What do you make of that?

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

As far as I am concerned, this legislation, Bill C-53, does not define who the Métis are. It seems to me that the Métis Nation of Ontario defined who their own members are. Whereas, as indigenous status people, we are defined within the legislation under the Indian Act. That defines us, so it's a free-for-all as far as I can see in this Bill C-53. Anybody can claim to be a Métis.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

No. First of all, we do not support Bill C-53. Therefore, we're not going to recommend any amendments to it at all. As our friend from Treaty 6 stated, we are the rightful landholders. We inherited the land from our ancestors. That's the way we would like to keep it.

[Chief Greg Desjarlais, Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations]

I want to thank the committee members for giving us, from the Confederacy of Treaty Six in western Canada, a chance to address some issues related to Bill C-53.

I am a treaty chief from the Frog Lake Cree Nation, which is part of Treaty No. 6. Our ancestors entered into a peace and friendship treaty with the British Crown in 1876 to allow her subjects to live in our territories. It is important for us to stress that we never gave up our lands and resources. Our ancestors allowed the Crown's subjects to live in our territories, not to own them.

We will have prepared a written submission for the committee. I will not read it, but will speak to a few points and leave time for questions.

This is a Liberal government bill. It is not a bill based on the consent of the treaty peoples. We have to remember that Parliament controls this bill. In the future, if you want to change, amend or repeal the legislation, it is the right of Parliament. Our treaty rights are not controlled by Parliament.

We have noted that there is no implementation plan. How is the government going to reconcile conflicting interests? We ask these questions coming from Alberta.

We are going to raise an issue that is unique to Alberta. The Government of Alberta, during the 1930s' worldwide depression, created eight unique Métis settlements. The Province of Alberta set aside lands for Métis for their use. These settlements are not part of the Métis Nation of Alberta's constitutional structure. However, the constitution does contain language that, if the Métis settlements in the near future want to be part of the Métis Nation, they can negotiate their way into the Métis government. This is set out in chapter 19 of the constitution, with a very strange clause stating that the Métis settlements would continue as created by Alberta.

In effect, the federal legislation would create another structure of Métis within Alberta. One would be recognized by the province and one recognized by the federal government. The situation is really setting up a future conflict of laws. The Alberta legislation clearly states that anyone who is recognized by federal legislation is not entitled to be a member of the Métis settlement. There are a number of court cases that have reached the same conclusion.

We are wondering what the Alberta government has told the members of the committee about the apparent conflict. If the province has occupied the field under section 92, what is the federal jurisdiction going to do? How do industry and other agencies react when consultation is required? Does industry follow the federal definition of Métis as set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Powley, or does industry follow the Province of Alberta's definition as set out in Alberta law?

Does Bill C-53 override any provincial legislation? If it does, then the legislation should be clear.

We have a number of questions.

First, if the process is based on the right of free, prior and informed consent, how does the government determine those criteria?

Second, the Province of Alberta does not appear to have been engaged in this legislation process. How is the federal government going to reconcile the two separate definitions of Métis? Who will decide?

Third, Canada appears to be creating chaos rather than reconciliation. The chiefs in Alberta issued a statement on Bill C-53, which is attached to our presentation. It says that the chiefs of Alberta call on the federal government to abandon this bill that they perceive as “ill-conceived and divisive”. The honour of the Crown is not upheld when Canada creates legislation that disregards our treaties. The inherent and treaty rights guaranteed to our people are not subject to change or renegotiation. That must be upheld for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.

As sovereign nations, our chiefs are standing up for our treaties and for our future generations. We cannot allow Bill C-53 to create a precedent for revisiting and undermining treaty agreements and the treaty rights they guarantee.

We commend this to the members to read.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

In closing, this Liberal government is engaging in irresponsible Crown legislative conduct by advancing Bill C-53. What we are witnessing in Canada is pitting first nations against Métis people to protect the section 35 rights and interests of our children and future generations.

Meegwetch.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

Matawa is formally submitting this letter to the standing committee.

On Thursday, October 26, the standing committee heard testimony from the Métis nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta that Bill C-53 only impacts the Métis people, and there is no trigger of the duty to consult with first nations on this proposed legislation.

It is the Matawa position that the Métis nations are not the consent providers of our peoples, nor are they appropriate legal advisers to be providing such high-level legal determinations and advice to your committee. In this irresponsible capacity, the Métis nations are acting as enforcers of colonial mechanisms and court decisions in their own interests.

Canada has not informed first nations of the impacts of Bill C-53.

Bill C-53, in clause 8, “Recognition”, raises the Métis nations to the definition of “Indigenous governing body”. It is the Matawa position that the Métis, specifically in Ontario, are not the constitutional equals of the original inhabitants of this land—a role held only by first nations and Inuit.

The Matawa chiefs council recommends to the standing committee that a formal analysis be conducted by the Department of Justice as to the impacts of Bill C-53 on the section 35 rights of the land-rights holding indigenous consent providers in Canada—the Inuit and first nations that are treaty, non-treaty or modern treaty rights holders.

It is the Matawa position that Bill C-53 will impact our section 35 aboriginal and treaty rights, including aspects of community governance, traditional jurisdictions, lands and resources.

The Matawa chiefs council submits to the standing committee the Métis Nation of Ontario's zone map, which is publicly available on its website. As shown on the map, the Métis Nation of Ontario publicly makes unsubstantiated claims to the James Bay Treaty No. 9 boundaries and the rich traditional territories of the Matawa member first nations.

The Matawa chiefs council also recommends that the Department of Justice, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and Indigenous Services Canada provide an impact analysis or definition on the parameters for the term “distinctions-based approach”. Bill C-53 will eliminate the distinctions-based approach between first nations, Inuit and Métis that has previously been a safeguard to distinguishing and protecting the established land rights and interests of first nations and the Inuit peoples of Canada.

Our land and resources rights, all current codeveloped legislative initiatives on policing, health, family and child welfare, and the upcoming negotiations of the United Nations declaration act will be impacted by Bill C-53.

Another ignored impact of Bill C-53 will be in the Impact Assessment Act, which has been successfully challenged by Alberta as unconstitutional.

It is the Matawa position that the list of impacts of Bill C-53 on the first nations of Canada has been minimized and ignored.

[David Paul Achneepineskum, Chief Executive Officer, Matawa First Nations]

My name is David Paul Achneepineskum. I'm the Matawa chief executive officer. I'm also a member of Marten Falls First Nation.

I am presenting today on behalf of Matawa First Nations management and the Matawa chiefs council. There was very limited advance notice of these standing committee hearings, with only a few hours given to confirm our participation here today, but we are here.

The Matawa chiefs council represents the nine first nations of Aroland, Constance Lake, Eabametoong, Ginoogaming, Long Lake #58, Marten Falls, Nibinamik, Neskantaga and Webequie. The Matawa First Nations has a population of 10,864 as of March 2023.

The Matawa traditional territories and homelands are known around the world as the Ring of Fire region, Canada's and North America's emerging lone source of chromite and other critical minerals—nickel, gold and silver—that will be required to reposition Canada and its allies in the new green economy.

On June 21, 2023, the day Bill C-53 was introduced and referred at second reading [Technical difficulty—Editor] the Matawa chiefs council issued a letter to the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon, calling on her to respond to protect the rights and interests of our first nations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thank you to the witnesses. It is always a pleasure to hear what you have to say and to hear the youth as well. The young man delivered his speech really well.

Theresa, I am so proud of your son. Although he is still going to high school, he is already showing signs of leadership.

I want to ask every one of you if you can respond to my question.

If Bill C-53 is passed, in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, when the Métis have their own government, when you have self-government, you will be able to pass bylaws. What kind of legislation would you like to see in the constitution? As a self-governing people in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, what kind of legislation would you like to see for Métis to be able to govern themselves?

[English]

What kinds of laws would you like those self-governing nations to make? We're assuming that by having self-government that will naturally lead to those self-governments making laws. What kinds of laws would you like to see those nations making that will have impacts on Métis peoples in each of the nations that will be impacted?

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

What impact would Bill C‑53 have on Métis youth?

[Jordyn Playne, President, Youth Council, Métis Nation of Ontario]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Jordyn Playne, president of the Métis Nation of Ontario youth council and the youth representative on the provisional council of the Métis Nation of Ontario.

I'm a descendent of Marguerite Dusome of Penetanguishene, a historic community along the shores of Georgian Bay. My community has a rich and long history of self-governing Métis people. We are rights-bearing community members of the Métis community of Georgian Bay under section 35 and have an inherent and constitutional right to self-government.

My Métis ancestors were forced off their lands, but always maintained their community around the upper Great Lakes. Today we celebrate our heritage through vibrant community councils, gatherings, youth cultural programming, Métis music and art and our traditional ways of life. We also celebrate the stories that connect first nations and Métis people. It is essential that we remember our shared history and the waters of Georgian Bay that hold the spirit of our ancestors. They continue to inspire us today.

That said, since the introduction of this legislation, misinformation has been spreading about Métis communities, driven by some Métis and first nations leadership. As a result, Ontario Métis students and young people are now living in fear of online misinformation and being subjected, at some points, to harassment at school.

It is not that Métis youth are questioning our identity. We are strong in our connections to our community and to our culture. It is our youth, like Hayden Stenlund, who spoke previously, who are continuing to pick up the fight of our ancestors to ensure that future generations find themselves better off than we are today.

This new-found concern stems from those who seek to undermine our very existence and leaves us wondering—and anxious—whether tomorrow might bring more hurtful accusations, and questioning how we can respond to this lateral violence.

While the Métis have always faced prejudice, our generation grew up at a time when Métis rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. For the past 20 years, we have had rights recognition that was denied to our ancestors. In some cases, even instructors and professors are attacking Ontario youth on social media. In other cases, Métis young people are being bullied at school.

This is having a negative psychological impact on Métis youth. We cannot allow political division to damage the relationships between the first nations and Métis people in what is now Canada. As we all work together to walk the path of reconciliation together, we need to focus on the common ground we share.

We found plenty of this, on issues such as climate change, education, equitable access to health care and the need to take action on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, but we must also support one another in advancing our respective self-governments.

Bill C-53 will not only empower Métis governments to protect Métis children and families in the welfare system but also ensure that Métis youth get a real say in the programs and services provided by our Métis governments.

Bill C-53 will allow youth to have a voice. It will empower our young people to be in the dialogue with our Métis leadership and uplift our voices around shaping the laws and policies of our Métis government. It provides us with the autonomy to ensure that our people are taken care of in a way that is respective and representative of our own culture and ways of knowing. This legislation is truly reconciliation in action, and it enshrines in law the section 35 rights that our people were promised many years ago.

My ancestors and past leadership have fought for our right to self-govern and determine our collective paths forward. We have a historic opportunity to finish the work of our ancestors and build a Métis government that is rooted in our ways of knowing, being and culture. My Métis ancestors started to paddle the canoe forward in our journey towards self-government, and it is now the responsibility of Canada and our leadership to safeguard this journey for future generations.

I ask for your support of Bill C-53 to ensure not only that the people of today have protected rights of self-government but also that my children, my children's children and future generations are self-governing Métis people.

[Melanie Omeniho, President, Women of the Métis Nation - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak]

Thank you.

Before I start, I want to say how proud I am of Hayden. I've known Hayden since he was a very young man, and he does make my heart big.

Good afternoon. My name is Melanie Omeniho. I'm the president of Women of the Métis Nation-Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak.

I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from Treaty 6 territory, the motherland of the Métis nation.

Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak is the national Métis women's organization. It's democratically mandated to represent Métis women across the Métis nation motherland. LFMO plays a significant role in enhancing the social, cultural, economic, environmental and leadership space occupied by Métis women. We influence public policy and decision-making related to rights, priorities, concerns and aspirations of Métis women within the Métis nation and the Canadian government.

I'm here today speaking in favour of the passing of Bill C-53. Having reviewed the proposed bill, I'm heartened to see that, after the signing in 2019 with Canada and the Métis governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, the relationship will be formalized by way of the passing of Bill C-53.

Métis people have long been seen as the “free men”. The Cree people gave us the name of “Otipemisiwak”: the people who governed and owned themselves.

This bill recognizes and acknowledges that Métis people have the right, based on section 35 of the Constitution of 1982, to actualize self-government. By way of law, this will further define that Canada will interact with the specified Métis governments, recognizing their right to self-govern.

This bill does not deal with land or land rights, as may have been heard through media. It speaks solely to the internal governance structures of the Otipemisiwak-Métis government, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan and the Métis Nation of Alberta. It does not impact on other indigenous peoples or other people who are Métis who are seeking their own rights.

The bill recognizes the authority with respect to governance, operations and things like child and family services. Further, Bill C-53 speaks to our self-determination on who is Métis. This bill has no adverse impacts on other indigenous peoples. Métis rights are not subordinate to the rights of other indigenous peoples. There is no hierarchy of indigenous rights. This fact is spoken about within the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and even in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Powley decision.

With several recent examples of the swift passing of government bills on other indigenous nations, I would expect that there would be no impediment to the swift passing of this act.

Article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Further, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act states:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of the inherent right to self-determination, including the right of self-government;

Bill C-53 is simply validating what the Government of Canada has already committed to in its relationship with indigenous peoples. We speak strongly in favour of the work and look to offer our support with ongoing Métis gender-based intersectional analysis through the implementation of Bill C-53. It will take everyone's collective efforts to make this process a success and to empower this historic bill to be a driving force to advance reconciliation in Canada.

I look forward to joining with our other Métis nation leaders to ensure the swift passing of this bill supporting the Métis nation of governments and advancing our reconciliation.

Thank you.

[Hayden Stenlund, Student, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Michif]

[English]

I am 17 years old. I have cerebral palsy. I am in grade 12 at St. Thomas Aquinas High School. I am a descendant of the half-breed adhesion to Treaty 3. My ancestors are from the northwestern Ontario Métis community in the traditional territory of Treaty 3—Rainy Lake, Rainy River, Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul. The Métis are a distinct people with our own way of life and language, which is Michif.

My family has strong roots in the northwestern Ontario Métis community. My ancestors were present in the area prior to Canada being Canada. The Métis in region 1 are grounded in our identity with regard to who we are and where we come from as people. I've known my roots and Métis identity since birth. I have become a strong advocate for Métis rights and interests. I was raised within a Métis community, and I've been constantly surrounded by strong regional Métis leaders who've advocated and defended our Métis community. My older sister Katelyne and I have been lucky enough to grow up in our Métis community since birth. My Métis family ensured we knew, understood and protected our Métis identity and way of life. From an infant, I was brought onto the lands and waters of my traditional territory to receive teachings regarding my way of life. Because of this, I am proud of, grounded in and aware of where I come from, who I am and my very Métis roots, as I know them.

My mother Regional Councillor Stenlund has always fought for the rights of the citizens in our area. She taught me that my community is rooted in the facts of history: where our ancestors come from, and our rights, interests and claims. We have these inherent rights.

The Crown knew we were a distinct people in 1871, when the Dawson Route came through my territory. Canada acknowledged the Métis in the community via the 1871 half-breeds of Fort Frances Dawson pay list, on which one of my own ancestors is listed. In 1875, Canada again formally acknowledged the Métis community in northwestern Ontario by signing a treaty with us—a half-breed treaty, a Métis treaty. Canada made promises to our Métis community with our Métis treaty adhesion in 1875.

Bill C-53 is a way for Canada to be honourable and to treat our Métis communities the same way as first nation communities with regard to our being able to govern ourselves. The passing of Bill C-53 is more than just a legislative bill on paper. It’s a way for Canada to treat us equitably and to acknowledge that Métis already govern ourselves. The passing of Bill C-53 is an opportunity for Canada to finally and formerly acknowledge our right to internal governance and authority over our citizenship, election processes and Métis child and family services.

I shared my story because I personally believe it's important for Canada to acknowledge and respect us. Our communities will have this legislation acknowledging us. How I was raised should not be compromised. My mom and the MNO should not have to continually stand up for and defend the citizens and our communities. I strongly believe Métis self-government will help us maintain our way of life and allow us to govern ourselves in the Métis way, for all of our future descendants. This is reconciliation in action.

I implore you all to realize the significance of what you are voting on. Think of how you can impact Métis families, communities and our way of life. Our citizens and future generations should not have to turn to the courts to defend our people and communities. Canada needs to act swiftly. This is your opportunity to pass this legislation to acknowledge our right to self-government.

Thank you all. Kawapamitin.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That takes us to the end of the time we have.

There are a couple of minutes left on the clock. I do have one item that I need to bring to the committee.

We're done with our questions. Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here today. It's a really important start to our study of Bill C-53. I think you set the stage very well for us.

Over the next three weeks or so, we look forward to hearing from more witnesses, culminating in hearing from the minister and officials. I'm sure you'll be watching the proceedings very closely.

I want to thank each of you, and I know there are members of your community who are here with you today joining us. Thank you for the very important testimony that you've given us.

Colleagues, before we go, there was a technical point we missed last Tuesday. It's been brought to my attention that through our routine motions, we require at least 48 hours between submitting amendments and starting clause-by-clause study. We moved the date because of the minister's delayed appearance, so now we need to move our clause-by-clause consideration from November 30 to December 5. I would like to make sure that's on the record and that we're all in agreement with that.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

I think President Froh and Vice-President LeClair have said very eloquently what it means to be Métis.

We are a distinct people. We have our own culture, our own language and our own governance structure. We have all of those things. One thing we haven't talked about is our humour; we have that, too. We were talking about it earlier today. We are funny people and we enjoy that.

When we think about forgotten people.... A couple of years ago I was taking a citizenship application in the region 2 office where I worked. The lady sitting across the table from me showed me her family tree. Her family tree listed my great-great-grandfather. She was denied her culture because a settler who married her great-great-grandmother told her that she couldn't tell her family; she couldn't be Métis anymore.

We cried about it in that office because she was my cousin and she had no idea where she came from. She had no idea that her family fought at the Battle of Batoche. She had no idea that my grandmother, who would have been an aunt of hers, was born under a Red River cart on a buffalo hunt in southern Saskatchewan.

These are the things Bill C-53 is about, as Vice-President LeClair said. It's about preserving our language and our culture so that our children and our grandchildren will know who they are. That's what it's about.

[Michelle LeClair]

Yes, we did emerge as a new community. I always think of ourselves as the new Canadians, the first Canadians, the merging of cultures. Distinctly we have our own language, culture, values, and all of those sorts of things, and the history of our people, which is so important to look at. Think back to the days of the buffalo hunts and the way that families hunted together and that sort of thing. There are so many things that make us distinct.

A sad part of this whole conversation is the language aspect. It's important for you to know that the Michif language is only spoken in 0.5% of households in Saskatchewan. It's going to become an extinct language.

Things like BillC-53 are going to help to regain some of that language. We're doing work with schools, and so on and so forth, but we really have to dig down and ensure that we don't lose those really core things that make us who we are.

I don't know if I answered your question. I went all over the place, but—

[Margaret Froh]

Sure, and thank you very much, honourable member, for the question.

It ties into many of the questions that have been asked today. I think there are a lot of people within Canada who don't understand who we are as a people, which is why we're doing the work that we're doing.

You're exactly right: Our people emerged, and we emerged, as a new people in these communities that were distinct, that stood apart from their first nations relatives, that stood apart from their European ancestors as well, and that's exactly why we are recognized as one of the aboriginal peoples in section 35. That distinctness of language, culture and traditions in distinct communities that actually asserted themselves as distinct communities is a part of the beautiful and rich history of the Métis, and again, exactly why it is that we are recognized as a distinct people.

It's not at all about mixed ancestry. I think that's a common belief, but it doesn't capture the reality that we emerged as a distinct people, and that is why we're here today. That's what Bill C-53 is all about. It's recognizing that.

Marsi.

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you for the question.

I completely agree with Vice-President LeClair.

I think this is an incredibly important part of the bill: recognition of our governments as indigenous governing bodies. Give us the tools we need to utilize Bill C-92, if we need them. That is critically important.

I think she has done a beautiful job talking about the impact of many different colonial policies. The sixties scoop isn't just from the 1960s. There is a child welfare industry, and our Métis children are very much impacted by this. Bill C-53 recognizes our government's right to take care of our own children.

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you for the question.

There are some who are saying they don't want the bill to go forward. I understand that they are saying that it's going to impact their rights. As you've heard already, this bill is about our internal self-government. It impacts only our three Métis governments. It impacts only our citizens. It has no impact on any other indigenous people.

I want to come back to your last question, honourable member. I think it's important that the question you were asking was about an individual Métis in section 35. I think it's very important to point out that section 35 rights are actually collectively held rights. An individual can choose to become a citizen of a Métis government or not. It's actually the rights-bearing community that holds those rights. That's exactly who it is that we represent with our three Métis governments. We represent rights-bearing Métis communities, which means the people within our respective jurisdictions. That's what section 35 is all about and that's what Bill C-53 is all about. It's in recognition of that. It's recognizing our inherent rights of self-determination.

[Margaret Froh]

I think you've heard all of us say that this bill really is reconciliation in action. It is putting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into action. I wanted to thank the honourable member for the question.

Article 3 specifically talks about indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, and article 4 specifically talks about the right to have autonomy or self-government. Article 33 of the UN declaration speaks to the rights of indigenous peoples “to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions”, and what you see in Bill C-53 is exactly that. It's a recognition of those inherent rights of self-determination and self-government. In fact, it's built right into Canada's national action plan on implementing the UN declaration; and as has been said before, I believe every time we see an indigenous nation being recognized and being respected in this way, it actually makes all of us stronger. It makes Canada stronger.

Marsifor the question.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to interject, because I am seriously running out of time. I want to ask one more question before they kick me out of this place today.

This has taken a long time to get here. In my office, we've monitored some indigenous legislation over the last couple of years. You talked about Bill C-29, which was introduced on the last day before the summer break. Bill C-38, which we finally debated last Friday, was introduced on the last day before last Christmas, and 11 months later we're actually debating it in the House of Commons. Bill C-53 was finally introduced on the last day before the summer break in June 2022.

This has taken a long time. I think there were several promises, dates and expectations created for your leaderships by the government.

I'm going to start with you, Michelle. You keep getting cut off by being last, so I'm going to start with you.

Do you want to comment at all on what you think took so long, why it took so long, or why it took until the very last minute, when I know this was promised several times in advance of that?

[Mitchell Case]

Thank you for that question.

Thanks to all of you for having us here.

I think the easiest way to support that is to pass Bill C-53. The governments that are represented here at this table have established registries that uphold the national definition of “Métis” that was established by the Métis nation through the Métis National Council and ratified by every single one of our governments. When I was a kid, that decision was made.

That definition was then upheld when my community was put on trial. We were put on trial. I grew up in Sault Ste. Marie when Canada and Ontario were using all the resources of their justice departments to tell us that we didn't exist. Quite frankly, we overcame that because we're pretty resilient, but also because the facts of history are on our side. They were not on Canada's side.

The facts of history and the law are on our side. Work with us to support our governments to continue to expand the capacity of our registries to do that work. Then we can provide that support to those institutions that want to stamp out that disgusting thing that is happening in those institutions with people claiming something that's not theirs.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Again, Bill C-53 is about the Métis Nation of Alberta, and of Saskatchewan and Ontario. It's about the citizens who have chosen to be citizens of the Métis Nation of Alberta. We have citizens who live on those settlements. We have citizens who live in Fort McKay, Pincher Creek and Fort Vermilion. We have 61,000 citizens in Alberta. It's their choice on whether they want to be a part of the Métis Nation of Alberta, and it explicitly says that in the legislation.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Thank you.

Failing to pass Bill C-53 will hurt all Métis people and the advancement of all indigenous people in Canada. Yes, it will affect all of us.

That legislation is there to protect us, to protect our rights. Governments come and go, and we need that legislation to protect what we have built.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Going back to my first question, my first question was answered.

Now I am going to ask you again: If Bill C-53 failed to be passed, how would it affect your nations?

[Margaret Froh]

I am happy to take the start.

I think it's very important. Bill C-53 is very clear that it only applies to our three Métis governments. It only applies to those individuals, those citizens who choose to be citizens of our three Métis governments. I think that is the answer to the question. Any individual can choose to be a citizen of one of our three Métis governments, or not. This legislation will only impact those who are.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As one of my colleagues said earlier, there are certainly difficult questions. The witnesses touched on myths earlier, and I'd like to raise one myth that relates to what Mr. McLeod just spoke about.

On one hand, he said that there was some concern that there would be a meteoric growth in membership, a concern to which the witnesses responded. On the other hand, there are people who define themselves as Métis, but refuse to recognize the structures, even those of the Métis, and who, as a result, say they are excluded from their own nation. I don't know the reasons behind this, and we should ask them. If any of these people appear before the committee, I will, of course, ask them.

We've talked about advocating inclusion rather than division. We may not be discussing treaties here, but how can Bill C‑53 dispel those fears?

I don't know who would like to answer. I saw Ms. LeClair and Ms. Froh nodding.

[Margaret Froh]

As I was mentioning earlier, each of our Métis governments has a well-established registry. There are very clear criteria for applying for citizenship. There's a very rigorous process that is involved for that, and every citizen making an application for citizenship has to meet those criteria in order to be recognized and admitted as a citizen.

In terms of enumeration, I think that in that sense, we're in a very good place, in that we already have those well-established registries in hand. In many respects, it's a little bit of a different process from what you are seeing in the Northwest Territories.

Again, this comes back to Bill C-53 and just how important it is to have that legislative framework for the recognition of the registries that we do have and of our inherent jurisdiction around citizenship, so thank you for the question. Marsi.

[Margaret Froh]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to respond.

Halu. Thank you for the question, honourable member.

Bill C-53 is indigenous recognition legislation. It is the same type of legislation that comes with every indigenous self-governing agreement and every modern treaty in this country's history. It provides the tools that Canada needs to change its laws to recognize indigenous governments.

Each of our Métis governments have now signed two self-government agreements. We made history in doing that. We require this legislation in order for Canada to change its laws to provide that recognition. If Bill C-53 is not passed, not only would that mark the first time ever in this country's history that Parliament has not supported indigenous self-government, it would also leave us in a bit of a limbo in that we have written agreements with government recognizing our inherent rights, without the legislation to provide the support for that recognition. I think that could create many different types of problems for Parliament and for government. It will certainly create problems for our governance as well.

More importantly, it would send a signal to the Métis in this country that they are not respected. That, I believe, is the very opposite of the intent of reconciliation.

I would thank the member for the question. We're looking forward to this opportunity to talk to the committee, to go through the legislative process, to see Bill C-53 become law and to finally to see that recognition of Métis self-government in this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I'm sorry. Are we testing?

Okay.

First of all, I want to thank every one of you. What I'm hearing is very good.

I am speaking to you now from my home community of Iqaluit. I am glad to hear what you're speaking about. We are speaking to our rights as peoples—as Métis, Cree and Inuit. Right now, the focus is on Métis rights, as a nation.

If Bill C-53 is not passed, how would it affect your nation, yourselves, your children and your grandchildren?

If you all want to respond to this question.... I leave it to you to respond.

Thank you.

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, again, I would reiterate that there's been a lot of rhetoric and there's been a lot of misinformation, I think, from the very basic point around the denial of Métis communities existing.

That is a fact within this country. It's a fact certainly within Ontario. In fact, that's the law within Canada. To simply make a statement that Métis communities don't exist or to have the misunderstanding on the impact of this, when clearly it is focused only on our internal governance and there is no impact on any other people is the type of misinformation.... There are many examples of that.

I think it's important to come back to just how important Bill C-53 is. We've been waiting for it for over 200 years. We've been fighting for that recognition of rights. We secured that, in fact, 20 years ago, yet here we are again having to debate with people the question of whether or not we even exist, let alone if we have rights.

We don't want to go backwards. We are looking forward, and particularly we're looking forward to the future for our children.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

I'll just say something that we've said over and over in all of our opening remarks—Bill C-53 is about us. It's about the Métis Nation of Ontario, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan and the Métis Nation of Alberta. It is about our governance structure. It is about our citizenship, our electoral process and our children. It is about no one else but us. Thank you.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Is there any reason to believe that Bill C-53 would create a ballooning or huge expansion of those numbers? Some of the fears are that it could be as much as 500,000 to a million people all of a sudden signing up. Is there any legitimacy to those arguments?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for that.

There's been a lot of talk about this being the first step for Métis. I was listening to the discussion yesterday and the ceremony for the Saskatchewan Métis, and you said that this is a historic starting place and that we have a lot more to do as a government to get fulfillment of Métis rights.

My understanding of Bill C-53 is that this is all about internal governance that's for the Métis, and nowhere does it mention land or resources. Also, nowhere in BillC-53 does it recognize that any parts of lands or resources would be in jeopardy or trigger a duty to consult. Is that your understanding as well?

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you for the question. I'm sure my colleagues may want to jump in on this as well.

The Métis Nation of Ontario, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and the Métis Nation of Alberta all follow a national definition. We each have very strong registries, and the process to apply for citizenship is very rigorous. We take that very seriously. In fact, we take it so seriously that in Ontario recently, our citizens' assembly, after a multi-year independent review of our registry, determined that there were some 5,000 citizen files on people who achieved citizenship without meeting the criteria over the course of the last 30 years, perhaps before we had a national definition and resources for our registry, so we've resolved to remove those 5,000 citizens. That's how seriously we take the issue of citizenship.

We don't have buses that roam around the province. That's another piece of information some have thrown out there. We have a very rigorous registry process, a very professional registry, and we determine who belongs. I think that's the important part of Bill C-53: Indigenous peoples have the right—this is part of UNDRIP as well—to decide who belongs. Bill C-53 respects our Métis government's right to determine citizenship, and we do that through a rigorous process.

[Margaret Froh]

I'd like to thank the chair and the honourable member for the question.

I would agree with you completely. This is a historic day, and so we're happy to be here.

In terms of the treaty, at the point where we're negotiating the treaty, as Vice-President LeClair was saying, if there's anything in that treaty that would impact the rights of any other indigenous peoples, the duty to consult and accommodate would be triggered, and Canada would be held to that standard. We would expect Canada to stand to that standard.

Bill C-53 is not the treaty, and I think that's important to say. When we're focusing on Bill C-53, we're talking about what's before us today. It's the legislative cradle for future agreements, including the future treaty.

I think your question around exactly what the process would be in terms of treaty and how that moves through the federal process is probably best addressed to the minister, who would be able to give you the proper response on that. I would come back to the fact that Bill C-53 itself is not a treaty. It speaks to a future treaty and it will become the cradle for that treaty when it comes.

Again, it focuses on those matters that are internal to our three Métis governments: our citizenship, how we elect our leaders, how we govern ourselves, how we take care of our children. As such, there is no duty to consult.

[Michelle LeClair, Vice-President, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan]

Tansi, edlanat'e, and good afternoon.

I am Michelle LeClair. I am the vice-president and minister of justice for the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan.

I am honoured to be here today to talk to you about Bill C-53. As a Métis leader, I know I am indebted to the leaders who have come before me, and some of you know of them, the late Jim Sinclair and the late Harry Daniels, among many others. Some of my earliest memories are of those leaders fighting for the recognition of our rights. Forty-one years ago, section 35 included Métis, first nations and Inuit people. One of the people who fought for those rights was Harry Daniels.

They fought for the recognition of our rights: our right to self-determination, our right to self-government, our right to raise our children and our right to thrive as a nation, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. Generation after generation, our leaders sacrificed everything to get to this point, and our government will work tirelessly to see this through. Our section 35 rights must be honoured and recognized.

As representatives of Canada around the table, you do not grant us those rights. These rights are inherent rights, and they were given to us by the Creator and by those ancestors who fought—and many died—to ensure that we had those rights. It is the duty of the Crown to recognize and uphold them. For more than 150 years of colonialism and oppression, our communities were divided and scattered, and still our people remained strong and united.

This is what many fail to grasp about Bill C-53. The Métis, of course, according to the Canadian Constitution under section 35, are one of the indigenous peoples. These three peoples have rights, and they always have. There is no hierarchy of rights or peoples in section 35. There are the first nations, the Métis and the Inuit. We are all equal under the law.

Canada must recognize our rights and negotiate with each of us in good faith. This is your duty. Mine is to sit here and remind you of your duty. I also want to remind you that section 35 is a full box of rights. It isn't up to other people to determine what those rights are. You don't get to pick our rights or choose the rights that we or other aboriginal peoples get; these are inherent rights. We all get the same recognition. We are all on the same footing.

Legitimate rights holders should not be pitted against one another. We would not tolerate it if this was attempted with our first nations and Inuit relations. All of you who represent Canada are bound to the honour of the Crown. It's your responsibility to build bridges and to create opportunities for everyone to thrive, not to divide and conquer.

To that end, we know that first nations in Ontario have voiced opposition to this legislation, and we acknowledge this. The MN-S has consistently advocated a process to defend the integrity of our nation. We have championed and advanced to all Métis nation governments an independent panel that would look at the root issue. This expert panel is our way, the Métis way, to address this in a responsible, transparent and objective way.

I am confident that the expert panel will shed some light on the concerns that Ontario first nations have. I am hoping that the chiefs of Ontario will attend, become part of that process and express their concerns to the panel.

I also encourage Ontario first nations to raise these issues with Canada.

During the treaty consultation process, all three treaties—MNA, MNO, MN-S—will be negotiated independently, and it's there, through that process, that the duty to consult will be triggered. MN-S is committed to ensuring that all impacted parties are consulted when we're negotiating our treaty. We assume that MNO and MNA will do the same.

The treaty process is Canada's venue to hear these concerns. Ours is in our expert panel. I encourage Ontario first nations to utilize both fully.

The venue for these concerns is not here, not regarding Bill C-53. Our legislation doesn't trigger the duty to consult. It lays the path to treaty-making and for Canada to finally recognize what we have always known.

We have never stopped and will never stop defending our rights, generation after generation. In this moment, I feel within me all of the lessons I've learned and every blood memory passed down to me from each of those leaders I talked about earlier. They prepared us for this moment. I promised them and our people that I will never stop until our rights are recognized.

Bill C-53 is your chance to build a lasting relationship, a nation-to-nation relationship, with Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. We're ready for this. The question is, are you?

[Margaret Froh, President, Métis Nation of Ontario]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

My name is Margaret Froh, and I am the democratically elected president of the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO.

I will start by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.

For over two centuries, Métis communities in what is now Ontario, along with other Métis communities throughout the Métis nation homeland, have stood up and asserted our peoplehood, our distinct collective identities and our rights as Métis. Within Ontario, Métis petitioned at Penetanguishene as early as the 1830s to have their rights and interests recognized. In 1849, Métis from the Sault Ste. Marie region joined with the Anishinabe to push back against Crown mining licences being issued in their shared territories, which led to the well-known Mica Bay uprising.

In 1875, the half-breeds of Rainy Lake and Rainy River asserted their rights and ultimately entered into an adhesion to Treaty No. 3. Métis living in locations such as Nipigon, Moose Factory and Mattawa petitioned as well. These Métis assertions were met with Crown indifference, denial and neglect. However, our people have always persevered. We did not go away or simply disappear.

It has been more than 40 years since section 35 of the Constitution was established, which recognized and affirmed the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Métis. For MNO, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Powley decision, which remains foundational for Métis rights assertions right across the Métis nation homeland. The Sault Ste. Marie Métis community continues to be the only Métis community in Canada to have its rights recognized by the Supreme Court.

Bill C-53 is about more than Canada finally recognizing in law that the MNO is a Métis government and that the Métis communities represented by the MNO hold the inherent rights of self-government and self-determination. It's also about improving the lives of Métis children and Métis families and communities in Ontario, and right across the Métis nation homeland.

The inherent rights that this legislation enshrines are human rights. However, because of Canada's historic denial of the very existence of the Métis people and our communities, we've seen our people fall through the cracks and not enjoy the same quality of life as other Canadians. Canada's denial and neglect have resulted in our history and our communities not being as well known as they should.

Bill C-53 begins to reverse this colonial legacy of denial. It's the foundation needed for real and meaningful steps forward on the path to reconciliation, and it will have positive and tangible impacts on our communities, on our people. This includes the ability for Métis governments to finally have a say over what happens to Métis babies and children, and also over creating our own systems to take care of our families, which is something indigenous people across Canada have been pursuing for decades. We will finally be able to design programs and services that meet the actual needs of our citizens. Bill C-53 will enable us to make those choices, not the Crown.

I want to emphasize that Bill C-53 applies to only the MNO, the MNA and the MN-S. Bill C-53 does not impact the rights of other indigenous peoples in any way, including Ontario first nations. I want to acknowledge there have been concerns raised by some first nations about this legislation and to reassure you that the MNO has been working hard to dispel the myths and false information that have been spread about this bill.

We ask this committee to ensure that it remains focused on what the bill actually does and says, and not on the myths or the rhetoric, the anti-Métis rhetoric, being advanced by some.

Similar to other indigenous self-government legislation that Parliament has passed, Bill C-53 is only about matters that are internal to our Métis self-government, so it's about our Métis citizenship. It's about Métis elections, Métis government internal operations, and Métis child and family services. It recognizes that no one other than our Métis citizens and communities should have a say over these internal self-government matters.

Bill C-53 truly is reconciliation in action. It was co-developed with our governments and Canada, and it was introduced in Parliament with our full support. We do not seek any amendments or changes to the bill, and we ask that it be passed quickly by this committee, consistent with how other indigenous self-government legislation has been considered.

All we are asking is that Métis be respected and be treated fairly and consistently by this committee, and that we be supported in our journey of self-determination and self-government. Reconciliation with all Canada's indigenous peoples is Parliament's goal.

Now is the time for Parliament to take a clear step forward to achieve this goal, hand in hand with the Métis, and pass Bill C-53.

Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I am Andrea Sandmaier. This September, I had the honour of being the first person elected as the president of the Métis Nation of Alberta, the MNA, under our new constitution, the Otipemisiwak Métis Government Constitution.

“Otipemisiwak” is the Cree name for the Métis people. It means “the people who own themselves”, “the people who govern themselves”. No sentiment could better capture the spirit of Bill C‑53. It is a bill to recognize who we are: a self-governing people.

In September, MNA citizens elected new representatives under our new governance structure and constitution. We did this because we are a self-governing nation, and our signed agreements with the Government of Canada recognize that.

Bill C‑53 implements our agreements and protects them. It ensures our Métis governments are equipped to support our citizens. Self-government means that we decide for ourselves how to best support Métis in Alberta. We decide what our housing and health programs look like. We decide how to help prepare our young people with world-class education and training. We decide how to support our elders as they age and we decide how to move forward together.

Only through self-government will the voices of Métis people truly be heard. This is why Bill C‑53 must be passed.

Our Métis ancestors were determined to govern themselves and to protect our traditions, values and truth for generations to come. They fought back against Canadian expansionism and the fraudulent scrip system that dispossessed our families and communities of our lands, and they defended Métis identity, lands, our way of life and our rights.

Over generations, the Crown made promises to our ancestors, but those promises were quickly broken, and our rights were denied and ignored. Nevertheless, we persevered. We came together, held democratic elections and built our self-government structures. Today the Métis Nation of Alberta is a democratic Métis government that represents more than 61,000 registered citizens.

We continue to come together to defend Métis rights and to advance our collective interests. We have built a province-wide service delivery system to help meet the needs of our people, yet we have always struggled to have Canada recognize us for what we are: a Métis government. Passing this legislation will provide that recognition. It is reconciliation in action. This historic step forward is long overdue.

Our section 35 rights as indigenous people are not a zero-sum game. The advancement of self-government and section 35 rights of one nation do not come at the expense of any other indigenous nation, and, more importantly, the legislation expressly applies only to the MNA, the MNO and the MN-S. The legislation does not impact the rights of other indigenous people, including other Métis.

We know that when one nation advances, it sets the path for all of us to move forward. The passage of Bill C‑53 doesn't affect anyone else, but failing to pass Bill C‑53 will hurt Métis people and the advancement of indigenous rights across the board. This is true for the Métis nation today. We deserve to advance in reconciliation, just like all other indigenous people.

Over the past 15 years, Parliament has passed all other indigenous self-government implementation legislation with all-party co-operation. It is our hope and expectation that Bill C‑53 will follow the same path.

I want to thank Minister Miller for bringing this legislation forward, and his successor, Minister Anandasangaree, for continuing this critical work and relationship.

Last November, over 15,000 Métis citizens in Alberta voted for self-government, and we adopted our Otipemisiwak Métis Government Constitution in the largest indigenous ratification vote in Canadian history. At that moment, a new chapter began for the Métis Nation of Alberta, and with this legislation a new chapter begins for Métis across Canada. Together, we can finally put an end to Canada's denial of the Métis as a self-governing indigenous people. Today we are asking for your support in passing Bill C-53.

Thank you.

Louis Riel

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to honour Louis Riel, a man who continues to inspire generations of Métis leaders in Canada and the respect of all Canadians. Riel was a father of the Métis Nation and the founder of Manitoba. He was a political leader who fearlessly fought for the rights of all Métis citizens at a time when his people faced persecution and oppression because of their culture, values and way of life.

Today, in front of the House, we have Bill C-53, which would recognize the rights of Métis in Canada. I call on everyone to reflect on the importance of Métis in Canada and support the rights and recognition of Métis people.

In recognizing Riel's unwavering commitment to the vitality and prosperity of Métis in Canada, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan will be hosting a reception this evening in the Speaker's lounge. I hope that colleagues in the House will join the Métis Nation in celebrating the incredible life and legacy of Louis Riel.

Indian Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an important piece of legislation.

I would like to identify some of the time frames we see around indigenous legislation. Let us go back a couple of years to when Bill C-29 was introduced on June 22, the second-last day of the parliamentary session in 2022. Bill C-38, which we are talking about today, was introduced on December 14. We are now 11 months down the road and are finally starting to debate this very important piece of legislation. Bill C-53 was introduced on June 21, 2023, the very last day of the parliamentary session. In our office, we have a running comment about how we address indigenous legislation from the government: It is the “last-minute Liberals”. They are doing it at the last minute all the time.

The parliamentary secretary identified that there are some issues that still need to be dealt with. She identified the second-generation cut. There are several others that are identified in the engagement kit presented by this bill. If it was going to take 11 months to actually get this bill to the floor to debate, can she identify why we did not solve some of the other issues at the same time so we could speed up this process and solve some of the challenges she identified?

(Bill C-9. On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

(Motion respecting Senate amendments agreed to)

(Bill S-8: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Third reading of Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

(Bill C-40: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews).

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

(Bill C-53: On the Order: Government Orders)

June 21, 2023—Second reading of Bill C-53, 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

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Ron Lemaire]

If we implement the PACA-like trust in the way it is being presented in Bill C-280, no.