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.

[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.