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.

[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.