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.

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick]

Okay.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfilment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee on behalf of the treaty land entitlement first nations regarding the significant delays caused by Canada's decision to consult with the Métis before adding land to first nations reserves. Crown land selections, including Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation's Crown land parcels, have been held up by the Métis claim of land use. If treaties are made with the Métis, there will be further conflict.

Second, Bill C-53 may impact first nations' rights through the attempt to legislate the recognition of treaties that have not yet been entered into with Métis collectives. Several first nations in Manitoba have traditional territories that span into what is now Ontario and Saskatchewan—two provinces directly contemplated by Bill C-53. Provincial boundaries have been established in an arbitrary manner that does not consider first nations' sovereignty and land rights, which long predate the creation of Canada and its provinces.

First nations have received no indication from Canada that their voices will be heard in the development process of proposed Métis treaties to ensure that they have not infringed on first nations' rights. Lack of future first nations consultation is likely, given that there will be no consultation of first nations in Manitoba in relation to the Red River Métis treaty. As I speak, this has not happened to this day. There was never any consultation with any of the PTOs in the province of Manitoba.

First nations in Manitoba have been waiting for more than a century to have their treaties respected, honoured and implemented by Canada. As our treaty partner, Canada should be focused on fulfilling its outstanding promises rather than entering into other treaties without our knowledge and consent. Until our sacred treaties are fully honoured, no other group should trust that Canada will honour any new treaties.

For these reasons, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs strongly opposes Bill C-53. We ask you, our treaty partner, to ensure that Bill C-53 is not passed.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Thank you so much.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the opportunity to speak to you on the subject matter of Bill C-53.

In my presentation today, I will discuss the impact of Bill C-53 on first nations' individual and collective rights. Through my remarks, I wish to convey the tremendous concern that the first nations in Manitoba have about the federal government's disregard for the inherent and treaty rights of first nations. Given the time restraints, I will refer you to my written brief for additional concerns about the bill's adherence to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Prior to European contact, first nations existed on the lands now known as Canada since time immemorial with our own unique laws and rights derived from the Creator. First nations in Manitoba have since exercised their own sovereignty alongside the Crown's assumed sovereignty through negotiated treaties and in respect of our sovereign nationhood.

Métis people, many of whom are our relatives, arose after contact with the Europeans. Unlike first nations, they have not existed on these lands since time immemorial with their own laws and nationhood. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged the distinction between first nations and Métis section 35 rights, further details of which are also provided in my written brief.

In proposing Bill C-53, your government is supporting Métis colonization and continuing a long history of ignoring first nations' rights. Bill C-53 is simply another method by which the Canadian government continues the colonization project against first nations.

Any claim that Bill C-53 will not impact first nations' rights is incorrect in two respects.

First is the overly broad characterization of Métis rights set out in precursor agreements that will be recognized by Bill C-53, which reference a historic Métis nation homeland, which includes all the land that is now Manitoba. This has the potential to unjustly recognize Métis as rights holders in first nations' treaty and traditional territories, where they have no connection or rights.

All first nations in Manitoba have entered into treaties with the Crown, which are the numbered treaties, or pre-Confederation treaties, entered into with the Dakota nations. A key component of the numbered treaties was a solemn commitment to set aside reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of first nations, and the right to harvest on treaty territories.

To this day, the Crown's treaty obligation to set aside reserve lands for first nations in Manitoba remains unfulfilled. First nations continue to have difficulty or are prohibited from exercising their full treaty harvesting rights. Bill C-53 would impede the ability of first nations to have their treaty obligations fulfilled.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfillment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you for being here today.

What you're talking about is very important to all of us, because we are indigenous peoples. I feel what you feel, and I understand this is a struggle for all of us. If our lands were to be managed by people other than ourselves, it wouldn't be right, so it is good to hear what you have to say today.

As it is today, Bill C-53 proposes to recognize the rights of the Métis nation. The Métis nation wants to have its rights recognized. You, as first nations, and we Inuit have our rights. The Métis nation wants to have the same rights as first nations.

Can you tell us whether you believe the Métis nation has its own rights? Are they included among the indigenous people of Canada? Are they identified in UNDRIP? Can you please elaborate?

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

Meegwetch for the question.

There's no clear historic evidence that there was a separate Métis nation in Manito Aki. That's Grand Council Treaty No. 3. We have never known a historic and separate Métis community within Manito Aki. We have never consented to the establishment of their narrative in the 1875 adhesion. We also never consented to the Indian Act and the creation of this group of non-status Anishinabe, some of whom found refuge in taking on a claimed Métis identity.

It is important to ensure that colonial laws stop acting as a means to cut off non-status individuals from rightful belonging, but Bill C-53 is not the right way to do it. In fact, it's a dangerous and unprincipled way forward. It is inconsistent with our treaty relationship, and I would say unconstitutional by Canada's standards. Those people are Anishinabe, and their hearts and their minds will tell them if they are truly indigenous and live within the indigenous law, like we do as Anishinabe.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you all for being here. I very much appreciate it.

Let me tell the others of the committee that much of my riding is the traditional territory of Treaty No. 3. NAN's headquarters are in my riding as well, and lots of people from NAN communities live either part time or full time in Thunder Bay. The only one missing is Fort William First Nation, which I'm pretty sure has the exact same perspective on this issue.

Let me say that my perspective on this bill will largely reflect what your positions and your viewpoints are on this, so I'm very eager to hear what you have to say on this.

With that in mind, I have a question for Grand Chief Kavanaugh.

I understand from your opening remarks that there's a concern within the Anishinabe nation of Treaty No. 3 that the Métis Nation of Ontario has gained momentum, at least in part, from the problem of non-status Indians created by the Indian Act, where essentially the non-status individuals have been able to take on the identity of Métis in order to access rights such as hunting and fishing.

Can you help me understand better how this relates to Bill C-53? You already kind of mentioned it. Am I wrong that you seem to be saying that if you could determine your own membership, you would rather have a lot of these people, who are claiming to be Métis, incorporated as part of Treaty No. 3 nation?

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Oji-Cree]

[English]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be back here on the unceded, unsurrendered lands of the Algonquin nation.

My name's Alvin Fiddler, and I'm the grand chief for Nishnawbe Aski Nation, one of the PTOs in what is now called Ontario. It's one of the largest PTOs in the country, covering almost two-thirds of the province of Ontario. There are three distinct languages in NAN: Cree in the eastern side, Oji-Cree to the west, and Ojibwa in the central south area.

I stand before you today to reiterate our position, which we set out in a letter we sent to Minister Anandasangaree, the new CIRNAC minister, on October 10. The message in that letter was clear. It was to ask Canada to withdraw Bill C-53 and to say it is reckless for Canada to rush through this legislation without meaningfully engaging with first nations, ensuring there is a proper basis for what Canada is doing and getting a thorough understanding of the consequences.

Canada's current attempt to force through Bill C-53 will do nothing but damage first nations' rights for generations to come, and I am here to tell you it is likely to cause damage to our relationship with you. The Métis Nation of Ontario has repeatedly made public statements and demands to our communities that it intends to impose itself on first nation lands and displace our rights. Given that reality, which Canada is choosing to ignore, what choice will we have? Giving aboriginal and treaty rights to groups on our territories that do not have a legitimate entitlement to rights diminishes those rights.

What we're asking for is transparency and meaningful consultation. We are also asking that you do proper due diligence on MNO's claims.

I want to be very clear: We're not here to oppose the legitimate rights of the Métis people as set out by rigorous legal test, for example in the Powley case. We support their aspirations in seeking to correct the historical injustices they faced and the processes established to get there. We have no issues with that.

What we are opposed to, however, are the six new illegitimate Métis communities in Ontario as represented by the MNO. The recognition of these communities is baseless, non-factual and not supported by genealogical evidence. One of the six, the Abitibi Inland Historic Métis Community, is deemed to be situated in Treaty No. 9 territory. This community does not exist. The neighbouring communities and elders have never seen such a community. I would invite you as members of this committee and ministers to visit this community—you will not find it. It's a fictional community simply designed to assert rights that are non-existent. I wanted to bring an elder here with me today to testify to this, but because of the short notice, he wasn't able to be here.

There are a number of other things we have issues with relating to this bill: one, the territorial rights assertion of Métis rights; two, future treaties with the Métis have been discussed by members of this government; three, undefined references to concepts such as mobility rights and activities incidental to harvesting.

In the last 15 seconds I have, I want to say that I hope you read all this material that we've given to you, and I hope you recognize how colonial this is, that you're sitting up there contemplating giving recognition to another group that is not legitimate in our view—at least the settlements they're claiming in our territory are not. We do have treaties—I brought the treaty documents with me—that were signed by my ancestors and your ancestors. That's the relationship we want to maintain.

Meegwetch. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh, Grand Council Treaty No. 3]

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin]

[English]

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. My name is Francis Kavanaugh. I am from Naotkamegwanning First Nation, and I am the ogichidaa or grand chief of Grand Council Treaty No. 3.

I am honoured to be appearing before you today to raise concerns of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3 regarding Bill C-53.

Grand Council Treaty No. 3 is the traditional government of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3. This includes 26 first nations in northwestern Ontario and two first nations in southeastern Manitoba. We are a nation with a common language, Anishinaabemowin. We have a shared creation story of the larger group of Anishinabe peoples living on Turtle Island, which is thousands of years old, and a migration story of how we came to be a nation at the height of land where the waters flow north into the Arctic watershed. This may be as long ago as 1200 A.D.

There are many concerning aspects of this bill that could be discussed. My focus today is on the concerns that relate directly to Treaty No. 3.

From our perspective, this bill must not pass. Seen in the context of previous agreements between Canada and the Métis Nation of Ontario, this bill provides a legislative pathway to reopening Treaty No. 3 without our involvement, let alone our consent. This bill is premised on a rewriting of history within our homeland, Manito Aki. It creates new section 35 rights within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty No. 3, absent of any historical or factual underpinning for such bestowal.

On misunderstandings of Treaty No. 3, we have several struggles with the Métis Nation of Ontario and their claims to represent some of the descendants of Treaty No. 3. These are based on narratives around an 1875 adhesion to Treaty No. 3. The misrepresentation stems from a racially problematic word used to describe mixed-blood Anishinabe. I’m talking here about the term “half-breed”. To be clear, Treaty No. 3 is only between two peoples, the British and the Anishinabe, in the presence of the Creator.

Euro-Canadians, believing in racial superiority, described our mixed Anishinabe kin as “half-breeds” only because they had the promise of white blood. British policy allowed these mixed Anishinabe to work in fur trade posts for salaries.

This is fact one: There were individuals with actual Métis cultural connection who intermarried with the Anishinabe well after 1873, and 1873 is a key date for the Powley case, developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have several modern-day citizens of the Anishinabe nation with a diversity of racial backgrounds. We are an inclusive nation and have been so because we have our own citizenship laws.

This is fact two: The Indian Act has caused many problems, including the issue we have today. So-called “half-breeds” in 1873 were affirmed as Anishinabe in 1875 because of Treaty No. 3 and the Anishinabe’s citizenship customs and law. This 1875 adhesion to treaty is sometimes called the “half-breed adhesion”.

Then the Indian Act produced non-status Indians in the 20th century because of Euro-Canadian views of caste and race and policies of enfranchisement. These colonial policies have separated our families for far too long, alienating our kin who do not have status under racist and exclusionary Indian Act provisions.

The Grand Council Treaty No. 3 would like to have the same powers of citizenship that we have exercised since time immemorial. Contrast our long fight for self-determination with that of the so-called Métis in Ontario. In the 1990s, we start seeing our Anishinabe but non-status kin—kin who lost status because of enfranchisement and discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that have repeatedly been found unconstitutional—turning to Métis groups for hunting and fishing rights and belonging.

If we had the means, we may have been capable of helping them with their fight for justice to keep their status and membership in our first nations, but we did not have the means in the 1990s. Our poverty forced us to be on the sidelines as these individuals fought for status and resigned themselves to using their great-grandparents' half-breed identity to belong to the Métis groups.

These so-called half-breeds were not part of a distinct Métis community; they were part of the Anishinabe nation, as affirmed during treaty negotiations in the 1873 adhesion to Treaty No. 3.

[Chief Scott McLeod, Nipissing First Nation, Chiefs of Ontario]

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following text:]

Aanin kina wiya. Zoongaabwi ndizhnikaaz. Nbiising ndoonjibaa. Shagi ndoodem.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hello, everyone. Zoongabwi is my name. Nipissing First Nation is where I’m from. I am Crane clan.

[English]

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Chief Scott McLeod of Nipissing First Nation.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about Bill C-53.

I'm proud to stand here today with our regional chief, grand chiefs and leadership in the name of protecting first nations' inherent and treaty-protected rights. I want to echo the regional chief's comments that first nations in the Ontario region support the legitimate claims of indigenous peoples but note that the recognition of unfounded claims undermines legitimate and inherent rights holders.

I'm here on behalf of the first nations of the Ontario region to voice our concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario being recognized as section 35 rights holders in Bill C-53. We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn until there is proper due diligence on the part of Canada to verify whom the Métis Nation of Ontario represents.

The communities represented by the MNO did not exist historically. We have been saying this for decades. The communities did not exist historically. They do not meet the legal criteria set out in Powley and, therefore, cannot have section 35 rights.

Section 35 is to protect the rights of indigenous groups that existed on the land prior to the establishment of Canada. Section 35 is about protecting the rights of pre-existing nations on the land that they occupied. We now have academic research that demonstrates that the so-called MNO historic communities did not exist.

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin, a treaty-level organization representing the 21 first nations of the Robinson Huron Treaty, signed the treaty in 1850 and recently released a report titled “An Exploratory Study of Métis Nation of Ontario’s 'Historic Métis Communities' in Robinson-Huron Treaty Territory”. The report examined the MNO's own documentation in their verified Métis family lines report. These are public to check if the so-called communities met the criteria set out with Powley.

The MNO is reimagining family lines and manipulating census records to create a history that never happened in our territories.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, in order for a Métis community to qualify as having section 35 rights, it must have their own distinct language, culture, customs and family descendants living in a given geographic area for multiple generations prior to the effective European control.

The findings in this report demonstrate that the MNO Métis root ancestors and their descendants are not recorded in the Métis community prior to effective control. The MNO so-called Métis root ancestors are not primarily identified as Métis in the historical records, and many of the Métis root ancestors are never identified as Métis in the historical record.

I would like to take a moment to examine the MNO's McLeod-Riel verified Métis line. It provides us with an example of an important regional Anishinabe family that the MNO has transformed into a Métis family for Killarney.

We will focus on one individual, Gregor McGregor, a Métis root ancestor descendant. Please bear with me. I will be speaking about the census records, as this is what the MNO uses to form the foundation of its so-called historic communities. Gregor was listed as Scotch and living with his parents and younger sister in the 1881 census for Killarney. The four of them are the only ones on the census pages for Killarney not listed as Indian.

Ten years later, in 1891, Gregor was listed with his wife and their two children as French Canadian in Killarney. The family appears to be living exclusively among the Anishinabe families again. In 1901, Gregor, Véronique, their four children and his parents living next door are listed at the Whitefish reservation on Birch Island, today known as Whitefish River First Nation, as a French breed under “Colour”, and Chippewa Canadian under “Racial or Tribal Origins”. They are all recorded as speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with the five of the six remaining households listed on the census page.

Ten years later, again, in 1911, Gregor, Véronique and their now eight children were listed at the Whitefish River Indian reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with 27 other individuals on the same page of the census. Ten years later, in 1921, Gregor, Véronique and five of their children were once again listed on the Whitefish River reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with everybody else on the census page.

What all of this tells us is that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of McLeod-Riel Métis root ancestors were all integral members of the regional Anishinabe communities and there was no distinct Métis community there. According to public documentation produced in February 2023, Gregor McGregor and Véronique's descendants continued to be a significant presence in the Whitefish River First Nation, and those with the McGregor last name represent over 16% of the 730 adult citizens we all know today as the McGregors from Whitefish.

This is whom the MNO is claiming to represent, and they have people signing up to be members today who will benefit from section 35 rights based on being a descendant of Gregor McGregor.

This is only a glimpse into the findings of this report. There are many more examples just like this one. I have included this report as part of my submission for today's appearance. I sincerely hope you will take the time to review the information and findings while this committee studies Bill C-53. This is why first nations in Ontario and across Canada, the Manitoba Métis Federation and even the governing members of the Métis National Council all have serious concerns about the MNO's claims that they represent people who come from the historic Métis communities. No MNO should be recognized in Bill C-53.

Also, I will add to that Jean Teillet's report, which represents the firm—

[Grand Chief Glen Hare]

Good day, everybody.

Thank you for the introduction. I welcome being here with you all today. I'm Ontario regional chief Glen Hare, from Manitoulin Island.

Chiefs of Ontario is a first nations political and advocacy organization that represents 133 first nations in the Ontario region. I am proud to hold the office of regional chief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-53 here today. As I am sure you all know, there is a high level of interest from first nations to participate in the study of this bill. That is because of the massive impact we believe Bill C-53 will have on first nations rights. Those rights were given to us by the Creator, and they are very sacred to us.

Our primary concern is that the Métis Nation of Ontario is one of the groups included in this proposed legislation that will be recognized as having section 35 rights. The MNO has been asserting that they have historic Métis communities that completely overlap with our ancestral and treaty territories. Our leadership and elders assert that those communities never existed, or else they would remember them. The MNO is claiming a history on our lands that never happened.

If passed, this legislation will set a dangerous precedent. The MNO will be emboldened to keep asserting land rights and jurisdiction in our territories, in our consultations and in our agreements.

First nations continue to be left completely in the dark about the factual and legal basis for the recognition of MNO communities. We were not consulted at all throughout this entire process about the assignment of aboriginal rights to a group making assertions in our ancestral and treaty territories. This is going to impact our rights, so it's very much our business.

We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn. We are urging parliamentarians to take our concerns seriously and stop this process before further irreparable damage is done.

We came to Ottawa twice for peaceful demonstrations opposing the passing of Bill C-53. That was in both June and September of this year. We were joined by hundreds of family and community members, first nations youth, elders, knowledge-keepers, drummers, dancers, grassroots people, technicians and first nation leadership from Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, as well as the interim national chief. All were there to oppose the passing of this bill. People travelled hours to attend these demonstrations. Our rights are of the utmost importance to our people.

Second, I know my time is limited, but I think it's really important for this committee to know that it's not only Ontario first nations that are opposing the passing of this bill. We have absolutely taken a unified stance in Ontario on this issue. You can see that here today. You have the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski and Anishinabe nations, Grand Council Treaty No. 3, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, independent and unaffiliated first nations, and the Wabun and Matawa tribal councils. The Ontario region is very large. We do not always agree on everything, but this is something we've all come together on because it is so important. As I said, it's not just us. First nations across the country are worried about the impacts of this bill.

In July, at the Assembly of First Nations annual general assembly in Halifax, the chiefs in assembly unanimously passed a resolution entitled “Protect First Nations Rights and Interests from Unfounded Métis Rights Assertions”. First nations in every province and territory agree that this bill cannot pass. We have also received support from the Manitoba Métis Federation, which shares our concerns with the MNO's claims, stating, “Bill C-53 Rewards Indigenous Identity Theft”.

False claims to indigenous identity are not just some phenomenon happening in academia and the arts. This is it right here, in action, and this legislation, this House and this government will enable these false claims.

I see that the card has gone up already. I would like to close.

[David Paul Achneepineskum]

No, we didn't create the issue with the Métis. Within the Indian Act...infant tribesmen, women losing status when they married a non-indigenous person. That's where the Métis issue came about within our area.

It's up to Canada to resolve this Métis issue in another way, but don't use first nations again. You're putting the fault on first nations if this Métis Bill C-53 does not come about. We're not the ones at fault. It's the Government of Canada, and you have to resolve it yourself.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What position would you have taken had you been consulted on Bill C‑53 beforehand?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Desjarlais, you said that Bill C‑53 would create two tiers of governments.

Do you think the interests of first nations and the claims of Métis have to be at odds with one another?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We are fairly off topic from the intent of this meeting, which is to study Bill C-53.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I'm going to go to Mr. Desjarlais first.

What do you think this bill puts in place? It's not necessarily clear to me. There seems to be several levels of government. You have a treaty partner. On the indigenous side, you have the AFN, and then you may have something down to, say, a community association.

The Government of Canada wants to enter into a relationship with a number of bodies across the country here. Where would you peg Bill C-53, placing the Métis Nation of Alberta, for example, in that hierarchy of self-government?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

About two weeks ago, Mr. Desjarlais, you met with Minister Anandasangaree to express your opposition to Bill C‑53, among other things. You urged the minister to go back to the drawing board and carry out proper consultations.

What should those consultations look like?