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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Leroux, first of all, I want to thank you for your very relevant contribution to this study, as well as for your book Ascendance détournée : Quand les Blancs revendiquent une identité autochtone. In fact, it might be interesting for you to send it to the committee, so that it can analyze it as part of this study.

How do you explain the fact that the provincial and federal governments have not verified things like membership registries and membership criteria?

How do you explain the lack of shared history among first nations members of the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Métis Nation of Alberta, which was recognized yesterday as Otipemisiwak Métis Governement? There was a name change.

Are name changes frequent in these realities, from the moment there is an unfavourable judgment?

My last question is this. Yesterday, Minister Anandasangareesaid that Bill C‑53 would never be introduced in Parliament again or that it would be surprising if it were.

Consequently, do you think this is a step in the right direction?

[Karen Restoule]

I think this is the million-dollar question and one that many of us have been contending with, not only in the past weeks but in the past months and past years.

To your point, this is something that has been on the radar of many indigenous organizations, leaders and communities for quite some time. I actually believe that DEI policy created an environment in which programs that are intended to level the playing field are seen as preferential treatment or as advantages for a certain group. There's not a lot of knowledge yet as to the history of indigenous-Crown relations in Canada. A lot of Canadians still don't fully appreciate the reach and impact of the Indian Act and how we got here.

In large part, when you have programs that appear to favour one group or the other coupled with policies that promote self-identification.... The most recent example was Bill C-53. First nations leaders had a lot of questions for government around checks and balances on identification. DEI policies, hand-in-hand with policies that put in place self-identification for these types of programs, really lend themselves to the situation that we're currently facing.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I think there are a number of things the federal government can do. One of them, most importantly, is to stop developing policies that create institutions like the Algonquins of Ontario and giving recognition to the Métis Nation of Ontario through legislation like Bill C-53 without clearly understanding what these entities will do once they're created.

The bigger challenge, and I think the message I want to send the federal government, is that as a status first nation citizen, my first nation indigenousness is determined through the Indian Act, through subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Clearly, there are a number of rules within the Indian Act that tell me whether I'm status or non-status. The government, when it's convenient, as in the case of the Algonquins of Ontario, can simply develop a new policy and create new Indians who do not have to follow the same rules and pass the same tests that I do to be granted status.

My grandparents, my great-grandparents, my parents and I have all had to have indigenous ancestors to be recognized by the Canadian government as Indian. However, when it's convenient, they can create Indians like the Algonquins of Ontario through a policy that clearly gives them different rules from what we have to follow. To become an Algonquin of Ontario, you simply have to tie yourself to one of 12 root ancestors who have been identified, dating back to the 16th or 17th century.

There are two different sets of rules in this country when it comes to being first nations. There are those of us who are required to prove our indigenousness through the Indian Act and the rules that apply there, but there's a much lesser standard the government uses in the case of the Algonquins of Ontario because they simply have an end objective they want to achieve.

For me, at the end of the day, if we want to be recognized as first nations or indigenous, we should all have to be recognized under the same rules of the game and not have different rules for different groups and different entities, especially one that has a lesser standard than we have to meet to be considered Indian by the Canadian government.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Absolutely, without a doubt. We've been advocating for that since the minister dropped this bill, along with the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, the Chiefs of Ontario and others, who have clearly recognized that the Métis Nation of Ontario's legitimacy and claim to fame come from using our ancestors as ways and means to justify its existence when in fact it's far removed from our communities. Again, granting it recognition through Bill C-53 would be a travesty and an important injustice for indigenous people across the country and, more importantly, directly for the Algonquin nation, whose title and lands are being claimed by these fake Indians.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

There's a bit of a difference between Algonquins of Ontario—because it was created by the federal government, as I said, for the simple purpose of negotiating a land claim—and the Métis Nation of Ontario. They're a special animal unto themselves. We are directly impacted by the Métis Nation of Ontario because they claim rights, title and benefits on land that directly overlaps with the Kebaowek First Nation and the Algonquin people.

Bill C-53 has less of an impact on the AOO, but if Bill C-53 were to go forward, it would give rights, title and recognition to a group that simply didn't exist prior to contact. There are huge issues when government creates legislation for the benefit of recognition. Doing so does a disservice to the first nations people whose lands and territory the government is granting rights to.

It would absolutely be a dangerous precedent for Bill C-53 to move ahead. It would put us in direct conflict with the Métis Nation of Ontario.

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

Thank you.

What is the legal status of Algonquins of Ontario, or AOO?

If Bill C‑53were to pass, what effect would that have on the legitimacy of the Algonquins of Ontario? I would remind you that the committee had to report this bill to the House with amendments.

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

I would add that the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, reminded us at its convention last week that Bill C‑53 should indeed be withdrawn. A number of indigenous communities who are members of the AFN had made this request, as well as the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the Chiefs of Ontario, among others. The same request was also made by the Métis community living on the Métis homeland, Red River, which you recently visited.

There is still a lot of tension and disagreement surrounding Bill C‑53 in its current form. As you know, the Métis National Council is holding back information on a major report concerning the Métis Nation of Ontario. Also, the Métis Nation of Alberta file is on your desk. That just doesn't fly with first nations, the Métis and Inuit. I remind you that the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan left the organization in the spring of 2024, as did the Manitoba Métis Federation in 2021.

Can you tell us what is wrong with that organization? What about issues of adherence or non-compliance with regulations? First nations are a bit fed up with the cultural appropriation made by the ancestors of the Métis Nation of Ontario.

I'd like you to tell us if steps will be taken to clarify the role of the Métis National Council.

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

Thank you for the question, Mr. Lemire.

Bill C-53 is a piece of legislation this committee studied. I want to thank the committee for the work it did. I know it wasn't an easy conversation. There were many dynamics there.

At this point in the journey of Bill C-53, I would reluctantly say that it may be hard for this bill to continue in its current form. As you know, there was a court decision relating to the Métis Nation of Alberta. There was also a decision by the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan to pull out of that process. Consequently, I'm respecting those two separate but related conclusions. As a result, Bill C-53 will not be moving forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us.

You and your colleagues play an important role in determining what is indigenous and what is not. Procrastination on the identity file is causing a lot of grief to the legitimate members of first nations. I'll explain myself on this subject, but first I'd like you to clarify something.

Will your goal of scrapping Bill C‑53 come to fruition? In other words, will you ensure that this bill doesn't move forward in Parliament?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, this will be an opportunity for me to talk about identity and, above all, cultural appropriation. I want to talk about identity as a collective commitment toward first nations in a context of reconciliation, evidently. I rise today to intervene on the 18th report, which was given to my colleagues by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, on the matter of first nations, Red River Métis and Inuit identity theft. The committee shared it with my colleagues because this work should have been made a priority a long time ago. I am pleased to talk about it and to talk about the essential questions that need to be asked.

Identity is not just an abstract concept. It is an anchor. It ties us to our past, guides us in our present and lights the way to our future. It is not a right we can claim lightly, however. It is a promise that we make to our community, to our people and to those who will come after us. It is certainly not a privilege, as the federal government thinks it is, and, as I said, it is a fundamental right of a nation. What happens when that promise is broken? What happens when that identity is exploited, stolen or misused for personal or political gain? What happens when those who should be stewarding that identity, in other words, governments and institutions, fail to protect something that is sacred to so many communities?

Today, I am asking my colleagues to reflect on what it means to protect an identity, not only our own, but also that of our people. More importantly, I am asking them to reflect on the real economic, cultural and political consequences of identity appropriation. We need to make this issue a priority. The work that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs did was essential, urgent and necessary. This work is not only a political responsibility; it is a moral imperative. We are being called upon to answer a vital question that has been ignored for too long: How can we guarantee the integrity of identity recognition processes while respecting the legitimate rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit people?

Several ministers have already been asked to speak on this issue, as have some public servants whose decisions must now be examined in light of subsequent events. Experts will also be summoned to enlighten the committee regarding the loopholes that enabled such abuse to happen and suggest possible solutions. It is time to stop dancing around the issue. The misappropriation of indigenous identities is not just a simple administrative error or an isolated incident. It is an injustice that undermines our reconciliation efforts and the communities' trust in institutions. By failing to take immediate action, we have allowed unacceptable situations to proliferate. It is high time that we addressed this issue with courage and determination.

We cannot disregard the recent events that have shaken the public's trust in our institutions. The matter involving the former minister and member for Edmonton Centre is a perfect example of the dangers inherent to identity appropriation and its impact on relations between the government and indigenous peoples. Wrongfully claiming indigenous identity to obtain benefits or privileges, as alleged in this matter, is not only a serious breach of ethics, but a betrayal of the true members of these communities. This scandal highlights the urgent need to review our identity recognition procedures, ensure full transparency in government practices, and restore trust in our institutions.

We have a duty to the first nations, Métis and Inuit to correct these injustices, to listen to their concerns and to protect their rights and their identity. The mistakes of the past must not be repeated, and the government must show leadership by implementing clear and fair mechanisms that will prevent this kind of abuse from happening again. People need an identity that uplifts them, not one that divides them. Identity is more than just a word or an idea. It is a history, a legacy and a duty. However, this history does not exist in isolation. It is intertwined with the history of the other peoples and communities who share our land and our values.

Take a recent example involving the Algonquins and Métis of Ontario. In 2017, the Ontario government gave harvesting rights to groups claiming to be Métis, without consulting the Algonquins, whose land was directly affected. The Government of Ontario even created an entity called Algonquins of Ontario, or AOO. The Ontario government uses it to avoid the real conversations it should be having with the Anishinabe on their land, the same unceded land we are on right now. Let us think about this: Algonquins, who have had a relationship with this land for thousands of years, are suddenly excluded from discussions about their own rights. This decision caused severe tension and undermined the trust between the indigenous communities and the institutions involved.

In 2023, the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with the Algonquins, the real ones, allowing them to sue the government. However, that victory came after years of struggle, frustration and loss that could have been avoided had the Algonquins been consulted from the start. This case illustrates the broader reality. Identities cannot be defined in the absence of recognition from the communities involved. Identities must be uplifting, not divisive.

There is a philosophy of recognition. Who we are is not a personal choice. It is not something we can adopt or advocate for because it seems beneficial or rewarding. It is based on a fundamental principle, and that is recognition. An identity must be recognized by those who truly carry it, by those who share its history and responsibilities. The Red River Métis, the Inuit, like the Algonquins, the Anishinabe and other first nations, have complex social and cultural networks, shared histories and governance systems that define who is part of their communities. They know better than anyone else who belongs to their communities. They know their members, their families, their alliances. When a person or a group claims an identity without being recognized by those communities, that poses a serious problem. It is not just about authenticity. It is also a matter of respect.

Consider the member for Edmonton Centre, a former federal cabinet minister. For years, he presented himself as Métis, claiming to be a non-status adopted Cree. His claims have been proven to be unfounded. This undermined his credibility and shattered public trust in our institution. This conduct by a minister raises ethical and moral questions. This type of claim harms more than just the person making the claim. It is far from being a personal mistake. It harms actual indigenous communities, which are being robbed of opportunities and resources, robbed of their stories and their legitimacy. Basically, stealing an identity is also stealing a voice.

The real consequences of identity appropriation are not an abstract problem. They are real, measurable and often devastating for the communities involved. We are talking about the diversion of resources intended for indigenous communities. These include grants, programs and economic supports that, obviously, are limited. When individuals or groups falsely claim an identity, those resources are diverted.

Imagine a young Métis, Inuit or first nations artist whose project is rejected because some of the funding has been allocated to someone who does not actually belong to any of those communities. Imagine a family struggling to preserve its language or traditions but deprived of support because funds have been diverted to illegitimate projects.

That reinforces stereotypes. When an identity is misappropriated, it is often oversimplified. That feeds stereotypes that keep indigenous communities trapped in simplistic roles, such as the spiritual indigenous person, the marginalized indigenous person or, worse, the invisible indigenous person. Such stereotypes do not support these communities, far from it. They reinforce inequality and discrimination and can even lead to cultural erasure. One of the most insidious risks of identity appropriation is cultural homogenization. When everything ends up looking the same, the unique characteristics of each culture are erased. Every language that is forgotten, every ritual that is abandoned and every story that is not passed down is a loss for humanity as a whole.

Governments therefore have an implicit responsibility. All governments have a fundamental responsibility to protect the identities and rights of indigenous peoples. This responsibility cannot be taken lightly, because every decision a government makes or fails to make has profound impacts on social cohesion, justice and reconciliation. Governments must be vigilant, transparent and respectful to ensure that their decisions do not perpetuate past injustices. That requires clear, practical measures and systematic consultation. Every decision affecting indigenous rights or territories must be preceded by respectful, in-depth discussions with the nations affected. These consultations are not just an administrative exercise. They are an essential step for ensuring that the voices of first nations, Métis and Inuit people are at the heart of the decision-making process.

We need to establish clear criteria for recognition. Indigenous identities must be defined and recognized on the basis of solid historical evidence, authentic community ties and explicit validation by the nations concerned. Without such criteria, we risk diluting the integrity of indigenous identities and encouraging false claims.

Greater protection of resources is also required. Governments must ensure that funds and opportunities for indigenous communities are actually directed to their true beneficiaries. This includes preventing abuse that diverts resources away from their original purpose.

When governments fail to fulfill these responsibilities, they fuel tensions, weaken legitimate claims and undermine reconciliation efforts. To do otherwise would not only betray the communities involved, but also undermine the public's trust in our institutions.

It is imperative that governments rise to these challenges and act decisively to build a society where every identity is valued and respected.

This leads us to reflect on our own identity. In Quebec, we have a long history of fighting to preserve our language, our culture and our rights. However, this fight must be fought with respect and humility. We cannot defend our identity while ignoring or downplaying the identity of others. The true strength of an identity, whether national or cultural, lies in its ability to coexist with others, to enrich and be enriched by different but complementary histories.

The identity of the Quebec nation has never been frozen in time. It evolves with the times, it is enriched by discourse and reinvents itself in the face of modern-day challenges. Today, we live in a Quebec where cultural diversity, the claims of indigenous peoples and the struggle for social justice are redefining what it means to be a Quebecker.

The legacy of the Patriots, with their quest for freedom, equality and sovereignty, is still an inspiration. However, we need to go further. The contemporary question of Quebec's identity cannot be addressed without fully including the first nations and Inuit. Their history is intimately entwined with our own, and their contribution to our collective culture is immeasurable. We will never forget the Métis of the Red River colony and the first premier of Manitoba, Louis David Riel. Quebeckers supported him until his last breath and carried on the duty to keep alive the collective memory we share with the Métis of Red River.

In this increasingly globalized world, protecting our language, culture and history must include a sincere openness to others with whom we share this land. Today, being a Quebecker means accepting the duality of preserving what makes us different while valuing the diversity that enriches our society.

We have a duty to build an identity that not only honours our past, but also reflects our collective aspirations. This identity includes, recognizes and celebrates the richness of its many components. It can help us carry the legacy of Quebec as a nation forward into today's world.

Ministerial responsibilities require courageous political action. To get back to the main topic, ministers play an essential role as political leaders in protecting identities, but also in correcting the mistakes of the past. This role extends beyond words and good intentions. It requires tangible, courageous action aimed at restoring equity and justice.

Let us consider Bill C-53, for example. It is unacceptable as drafted and must be withdrawn. If we continue with this bill, we will be perpetuating injustice and further weakening the legitimate claims of indigenous communities. Rejecting this bill, as Métis and first nations people are calling for, is more than a symbolic gesture. It is an essential political act that will show that we will not tolerate identity misappropriation.

In addition, it is imperative to recognize that the 2023 agreement signed with the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO, was illegitimate. It was built on fragile and contested foundations and has already created considerable tension with first nations and genuine Métis communities. The federal government must send a clear message. Talks should be broken off immediately.

The Métis National Council was once a representative body but no longer exists as a functional organization. The Manitoba Métis withdrew from the council in 2021, and the Saskatchewan Métis followed their example in the spring of 2024. More recently, last Friday, the British Columbia Métis also left the council, and the situation in Alberta is already on the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations' desk. Clearly, the council has become dysfunctional and can no longer serve as a legitimate representative.

This farce has gone on long enough. The ministers need to show leadership by terminating these agreements and re-establishing transparent and respectful dialogue with the true representatives of the communities. Without a doubt, the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency have central roles to play in reconciliation efforts. However, they need to be aware that this responsibility does not rest solely on their shoulders. We have reminded them time and time again that some issues exceed the scope of their mandate and require the involvement of their cabinet colleagues.

Reconciliation is not a task that can be compartmentalized. It requires a cross-cutting approach that spans across all departments and sectors. The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs must ensure that justice and respect guide relations between law enforcement and indigenous communities. The Minister of Transport must take into account the realities of indigenous territories and work to open them up. The Minister of Canadian Heritage must recognize and support indigenous cultural initiatives to preserve and promote their languages, arts and stories. As for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, he has a duty to integrate indigenous perspectives into the policies for welcoming new immigrants, ensuring that newcomers understand and respect the history and rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. The list goes on. Each minister must actively contribute, in his or her own area, to this reconciliation.

Reconciliation is not just an election promise or a budget line. It is a collective effort that requires coherence, collaboration and unwavering political will. Everyone must play their part, for it is only by acting together that we can build a future based on mutual respect and justice. These decisions are not just about correcting policies. They are about taking responsibility, taking the kind of action that shows we are serious about protecting indigenous identities and peoples.

In conclusion, it is time to build a shared and respected identity for the promise of a bright future. Today, we asked concerning and crucial questions for all indigenous nations. We looked at the challenges of identity protection and the injustices that are far too often ignored. We reiterated the responsibilities that governments, ministers and all of our institutions have to the first nations, Métis and Inuit. What we have done is reaffirm a promise not to avert our eyes, not to abandon legitimate voices and not to allow appropriation to continue to steal stories, resources and rights. Identity is a fundamental right, a right that is to be not only protected, but also respected and valued. That respect has to be at the heart of all of our actions because it is about our common future. I have invited the ministers to take courageous action on recognizing the identity of indigenous nations. We have the power to write a new page together, a page that honours the communities, respects the voices and gives each person the dignity they deserve. This work cannot wait any longer. It is time to act with determination and with an eye to upholding justice.

I would add that this case speaks to the urgent need to create a registry recognized by first nations. As I said in my speech, first nations need to be able to determine who the members of their community are. When an individual, a minister or otherwise, claims indigenous status to gain access to contracts, that does nothing to further economic reconciliation. They say that 5% of the value of federal contracts is awarded to first nations businesses. However, if that money is constantly being misappropriated by people who check a box on a form to gain access to those funds because, in their opinion, they deserve because they identify as indigenous, we have a real societal issue.

I would remind the House that the fundamental issue is reconciliation. In this context, economic reconciliation necessarily involves respecting the power of first nations to define who they are. I have some examples. I mentioned an entity known as the Algonquins of Ontario, which has endorsed projects like Chalk River. The Indigenous, Algonquin and Anishinabe people living around Chalk River unanimously oppose the project, however, along with 140 municipalities. The fact is that certain pretendians not recognized by indigenous peoples have said that they support this economic bill. We do not know what agreements were made. We do not even know who they are. They are just people who checked a box on a form saying they are indigenous. They appropriated an identity, and that is causing real problems in today's society, because first nations are having to go all the way to the Supreme Court to assert their rights. This has to stop.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Patty, for joining us.

Minister, we heard from Joanna Bernard, regional chief in New Brunswick. There are a lot of complexities involved in indigenous identity. She mentioned the challenges around the second-generation cut-off where, if you have children outside of people registered under the Indian Act for two successive generations, you lose your status as an Indian. There's a definite cut-off point for first nations or status Indians in Canada.

However, when we're talking about Inuit and Métis, there isn't that definition in place that we can look to. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Daniels case that there was no consensus definition for what it is to be Métis, nor need there be.

During the study of Bill C-53, we heard that there were a lot of people who believe that, if you have indigenous and European ancestry, you're a Métis, but we know that's not the recognized definition from the Métis National Council.

When we look at this, at indigenous identity and the overall job of government to try to figure out who should be eligible and who shouldn't be eligible, do we have help from any organizations that can help guide government? It's pretty clear in UNDRIP, which is law, under article 33 that nations want the ability to determine who their own citizens are. That's part of why we're working with the AFN on the second-generation cut-off.

I'm wondering if you can speak to, first, the kind of outside help we are getting from indigenous organizations to help clarify these very muddy waters when it comes to people thinking they might be indigenous because they have some mixed ancestry somewhere in their family lineage. How do we educate Canadians as to what the definitions are of the different first nations, Inuit and Métis in Canada?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

First, I would like to say that, when Bill C-53 is being referred to, I don't recall what was in it. What I can recall is that Bill C-53 was not able to go through due to different factors with free, prior and informed consent. To me, it doesn't look like it will diminish the strength or make it weaker.

I support the amendments of both G-2 and what's being proposed. I support both of them because, even if they are not clearly defined, they will not create a roadblock. We are trying to plan ahead to the future. I don't know if the courts will need to define this, but even if it's brought forward to the court, I don't think it will be a roadblock.

I will support this amendment once we come to a vote on it.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

Again, this goes back to what I mentioned earlier when we said that this was going to be an issue back when we were discussing that very important piece of legislation. We agreed to the principles. We agreed with the vision. We agreed with everything in that UN declaration and the implementation legislation.

What we had an issue with was the definition, or lack thereof, of “free, prior and informed consent”, and we knew this was going to be a problem—maybe not right away but maybe years down the road. Sure enough, as I said earlier, Bill C-53 came along. Because that was not defined—and we heard it many times as witness testimony—nobody was really clear on what was going on.

I agree with Mr. Zimmer. We could be sending this into a battle in the courts at some point because a bunch of things, important terms, are not defined, especially “free, prior and informed consent”.

Again, I go back to Bill C-53. There are groups threatening court action on Bill C-53. I know it's in limbo right now, but at the same time, there are groups threatening court action. Why? It's because it was not defined at the time. We did not do our work. Of course, it was rushed through by the other parties. Nobody wanted to take the time to get it right.

Again, we're having major issues with some definitions. I would like to know, hopefully—or get a sign from someone in the room—that we will be getting to a definition at some point so that we know exactly what it is we are talking about, not some aspirational document that doesn't really define what source water protection zones are or what a protection zone is or what source water is. This is a piece of legislation that is severely lacking if we don't do our work here—absolutely severely lacking.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I remember that whole discussion when we were debating and discussing the UN declaration legislation at this committee. One of the issues we, the opposition, had was with the definition of “free, prior and informed consent” and what that actually meant. I remember I said—and so did many others on this side—that, if we don't do the work and start defining some of the major pieces in the legislation, we're going to wind up in trouble at some point and potentially in court.

Sure enough, Bill C-53 came along. Again, nobody had defined “free, prior and informed consent”. Yes, that laid a lot on us—probably the vast majority around the legislature, those sitting at this committee and others in the House who don't belong to this committee. Nobody gave direction, through government legislation, on who needed to be consulted. We had first nations saying that they wanted to be consulted and Métis saying, “No, we don't need to consult them, because it's our own self-governance issue and it doesn't involve anyone.” We didn't have that definition, which led us down a very bumpy road.

Having said that, we're talking about the very important issue of clean drinking water, but we are still a little vague in regard to three very important pieces. I think this committee should do the work and think about what that actually means, potentially adding a definition, as best we can, to this legislation, so that everybody knows what we are talking about when this bill gets passed. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to provide certainty to the first nations waiting for clean water. You are not going to be able to provide certainty to industry, which may or may not want to start an operation.

This is very concerning to me. I'd like some indication around this table that we are hopefully going to get to that before we wrap up the clause-by-clause at the end.

Obviously, that's not to the officials. It's to the group around the table.

I just happen to be looking in your direction, because you're right in front of me.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pseudo-indigenous people, or pretendians in English, are non-indigenous people who falsely claim indigenous ancestry or identity to take advantage of it for personal gain. What are you going to do about this?

You've got the situation of the Algonquins of Ontario. The Chalk River project was socially sanctioned despite objections from nearly every Algonquin and Anishinabe nation.

There's the Métis of Ontario and the Métis National Council who lost their raison d'être with the scrapping of Bill C‑53, but continue to receive federal funding.

The federal government awards contracts to companies that falsely claim to be indigenous. Canadian Heritage provides grants for indigenous cultural events organized by non-indigenous artists.

Academics and civil servants occupy positions designated for indigenous people, but no one has looked into whether they really are indigenous or not.

There are pretendians serving as an insurance policy in consultations conducted by the nuclear, gas and oil industries, and many other companies.

How far will things go? Will we finally see the end of it? Are you finally going to put your foot down? What’s going on?