Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2023

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Can I ask you to make your closing statement? Thank you.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Chief Desjarlais.

When you're ready, the floor is yours. You'll have five minutes.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We will get into the rounds of questions right now.

First up, I have Mr. Schmale, who will have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I have a ton of questions and not enough time, so I will pick up where you left off, Mr. Desjarlais. Could we talk about some of the comments you made just a few moments ago?

Last meeting, we had representatives from Métis Nation of Alberta here. They specifically said that a member of, say, Fort McKay or the Métis settlements did not necessarily have to be a member of MNA. If I heard you correctly, you said they do. Can you clarify this?

[Chief Greg Desjarlais]

I think what's happening is this: If you hold status or bill...which was created by the government, you're not allowed to live on the Métis settlements.

What we're saying is that the issue was already dealt with in the 1930s through the creation of the settlements.

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

Yes, I think they were talking about the membership. MNA was saying that you don't necessarily have to be a member to be on a settlement. I get your point—the provincial and federal difference.

While we're speaking, I also want to push back a little and try to flesh this out in terms of what we're hearing from the Métis side about a piece of legislation that deals with their own self-governance. The Métis, as we heard in our last meeting, are saying this piece of legislation does not affect first nations at all. If you heard our previous panel talk, it's more of a self-governing piece of legislation to allow them the authority to keep doing what they were doing in the past.

Your statements just now contradict that.

[Chief Greg Desjarlais]

Yes. I think my comment was about the membership and, I believe, the land. When we're fighting over a territory, we have an issue.

We also have a traditional territory here, which the Métis settlements and now the Métis nation claim. When you use the words “treaty” and “inherent right”, that's very offensive to us because the federal government can't even uphold our treaty.

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

That's one of the things we're also trying to look into and get clarification on.

It's our understanding, as this legislation stands—and I invite comments from our friend from Matawa as well—that there is the potential that, after this self-governing piece of legislation, a treaty process starts. That will involve consultation. Potentially, it would not come before Parliament for final ratification.

Is that your understanding as well?

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

Perhaps I can speak from a state view.

As far as we're concerned, self-government leads to a lot of things. Potentially, it's going to allow, as we mentioned in our brief.... It's going to lead to lands and resources. It's going to lead to getting our peoples together, and we don't want that. As far as we're concerned, we are the rightful landholders in our treaty territory. We want to keep it that way.

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

Mr. Desjarlais, do you want to comment?

[Chief Greg Desjarlais]

I will address that in writing. I think there are too many points to discuss, but it's the same thing. We hold that position. We are the treaty and inherent rights holders.

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

To our friend from Matawa, are there any amendments to this piece of legislation you would like to see added in order to make it more acceptable to the people you represent?

[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.

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

When you talk about land and resources, can you maybe dig into that a little further? Can you give us some of your concerns about that part? What do you think that means, and what are your concerns?

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

We talk about the Ring of Fire development that's potentially going to happen within the next decade. As far as we're concerned, we—the first nations people of the land, the treaty rights holders—are solely responsible within our land. It will be up to us to negotiate with these industries to benefit our peoples of the land.

As far as I'm concerned, Canada and Ontario have messed up our treaties since 1905 or 1906. We don't want that happening anymore. We would like to remain as the rightful landholders and benefit from those resources. The Ring of Fire development is the biggest mining development to happen here in Canada, and we are the rightful beneficiaries of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're out of time here, so we're going to go to our next questions.

Mr. Battiste, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the first nations chiefs and leaders who are presenting to us today.

We've heard testimony from the co-drafters of this legislation that nothing in this legislation actually uses the words “lands” or “resources” or impacts first nations lands or resources. Can you point me to the clause where there's a misconception somewhere that this actual legislation delegates any lands or resources, or any kind of notion of lands and resources, within this legislation?

That's for either one of you.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

There's really nothing in there. However, certainly, you talk about self-government, and it just leads to something else along the way.

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

It's not necessarily this legislation that you have issues with. It's what comes after, possibly.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

No. I mean, we've had issues with this legislation right from the start—

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

Can you show me—

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

—because it's going to lead to other things. Why have this legislation in the first place if it's going to lead to other legislation that will impact our lands and resources, our treaty rights, etc.?