Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I want to be sure that I understand the question. You're asking if the duty to consult should be limited to recognizing other indigenous groups' rights? Is that what you said? I'm sorry, Mr. McLeod, but I missed the last point of your question.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If there are existing treaty rights, first nations rights or inherent rights or section 35 rights, then, yes, absolutely, I do think there is a duty to consult.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think the interim national chief has adequately stated that. Also, we're calling for the establishment of a national consultation process with first nations to enable the Government of Canada to develop a respectful process to recognize Métis inherent rights and jurisdiction while ensuring adequate safeguards to address overlapping claims and infringement of first nations rights, to ensure that those safeguards are in place.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No. That's not what we said. We said that from our perspective, we don't understand how you can bifurcate the two, because that's not an indigenous perspective. Again, “internal governance” is not included in the wording of this legislation.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Are first nations supposed to take the word of the stakeholders who were involved in this process, when they themselves were not a part of the process?

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If this is just about internal governance, the legislation should say that. The position of the AFN and the mandate of the AFN is to request that the entirety of the legislation be withdrawn until there is a consultation process that accords with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on free, prior and informed consent, as well as the duty to consult, because that did not take place.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If we take Bill C-92 as an example, the child welfare legislation, I believe they were consulted. Bill C-92 is actually a really good example of the difference with first nations. Bill C-92 recognizes the jurisdiction and inherent right of first nations to their children, and that was limited to children.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes. As I understand the question, it's how this legislation goes against the principles of reconciliation. As the interim national chief said in her opening remarks, we were not consulted on this legislation beforehand. This is the first opportunity we've actually had to voice concerns from the first nations perspective.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No, the legislation does not include an explicit reference to land—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  —or resources. However, it also doesn't explicitly say that this legislation is solely related to internal governance matters either.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Can I finish my answer, please?

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. As you said, you've asked this question several times of first nations, about why they think this involves lands and resources. If you look at it from a first nations perspective, all of our rights—our inherent rights and our governance, most specifically our governance—are tied to our relationship to the land.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The AFN has made written submissions to the committee. If you look at page 20 of our written submissions, we addressed the non-derogation clause.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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.”

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  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.