Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2021

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chartrand, thank you for your excellent and clear presentation. I also wanted to thank you for taking the time to point out the delay in the translation of your speaking notes into the other official language. It means a lot to me that you did this.

I know that your organization hasn't suggested any amendments to Bill C-15. Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention and I missed this, but could you tell me whether there are any amendments that you don't support among the amendments suggested so far?

[David Chartrand]

Let me say this. There is one particular amendment that we would support as long as it doesn't.... I'll tell you why.

Thank you for your kind words.

The reason we're not making any amendments.... This is not a perfect document—all of us in this room know that—but it's a good document. It's a starting document. For us, we can change it as we move forward. It's no different from.... We're still fighting the Constitution in this country, in Canada right now, and how it will work for all of us, and we still have work to do on that issue for sure.

This particular document is not a perfect document. I did make reference to it in my report. You'll find it on page 7 at the second bullet. If there were to be any changes, there is only one amendment that the Métis nation would support—the addition of the term “racism” and “systemic racism and discrimination” to subparagraph 6(2)(a)(i), which speaks to the measures contained in the action plan to be developed. This is consistent with our priority to address systemic racism, discrimination and violence against indigenous peoples and indigenous elders, youth, children, women, men, persons with disabilities, and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons.

That's as long as it does not hold up this bill. This bill needs to get in and get royal assent for us to make history and for us to show the world why this country is ranked number one.

For me, the reason you're not seeing amendments from the Métis nation is that we want this to get through royal assent first. We can still fix it in the future, because it's not a perfect document.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you.

I have another question for you, Mr. Chartrand.

In practical terms, could you describe how you see your role and involvement in the whole process of developing the action plan?

[David Chartrand]

From our perspective, the way I see it, it's a transformation that's occurring in this country right now. I hope all governments would support that transformation and not say, “Oh, the Liberals started it, so we can't support it” or “The NDP started it, so we can't support it” or “The Bloc started it, so we can't support it”.

There's a transformation, a change, toward action and toward an ideology in this country for nation to nation and government to government that's really resonating for change. It's going to change the future. I'm telling you, as a leader with 40 years' experience in fighting for indigenous rights, this nation-to-nation and government-to-government transformation has already fundamentally changed where we're going. It's going to see massive change, and I hope every party supports this.

When you look at this particular process and action plan, we will be involved, as long as it's respected and nation to nation and government to government. We are governments in the Prairies. We operate governments. We are democratically elected like anybody else. In fact, we're probably more democratically elected than the leaders of this country, based on the structure of our constitution.

When you look at it from that context, as long as there's a clear respect for us as a government, we will be involved and should always be involved. If you're going to leave us out, I don't care what party you are, then it's a failure. You're going to fail. I don't care who you are or how smart you think you are or how good you think you are, you will fail if you don't have an inclusionary ideology attached to it: government to government and nation to nation is the right approach.

I assure you that in this country 10 years from now—if I look around at the crowd, we're still going to be alive, I hope—with the actions that you see today on government to government and nation to nation and the funding formulas, you're going to see changes.

I'll give you one example. In Manitoba, ever since the transformation of our power to make decisions on the basis of housing, in a year and half we had 600 families who bought their own houses. Six hundred families—young families—bought their own houses. They own them. Think about this. Twenty years from now, those kids will have an asset from their parents, who are going to leave it behind for them. They're going to have a head start.

When you start looking at this, as long as we're treated as a government, respected as a government and included as a government, then there should be no problems in the action plan.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have one minute left.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you.

We fully understand your desire to speak about nation to nation. Let me assure you that the Bloc Québécois understands and supports this concept.

Mr. Chartrand, do you have any concerns about what will happen before or after the bill is passed? Could you identify some of your concerns about the aftermath of Bill C-15?

[David Chartrand]

Let's start first with what happened before. Right now, my biggest fear is that this document could be used as a weaponized tool for political purposes, not for what its good intentions will do for industry, for us, for indigenous people, for governments and for this country. If it's not used as a weaponized political tool and everybody just does it, being conscious of all the education and information received, I think it should go smoothly.

Second, in the aftermath, you will see greater participation between industry and us. It's already slowly happening, because they see it coming. Industry sees it. Industry always thinks years ahead. They see it coming. There's a transformation coming, so let's not use it as fearmongering that it's going to kill industry, that it's going to kill businesses. It's actually going to enhance it and assure shareholders and assure everybody that the doors are open for business. At the same time, we're going to protect the environment, and if we work together on that, there's no way that we're going to fail in this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.

Ms. Blaney, you have six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chartrand, for your speech today. I thought it was very important. I want to especially thank you for clarifying that all other government structures have free, prior and informed consent. This is just about making it fair.

In 2019, the Government of British Columbia introduced Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Bill 41 authorizes provincial governments to enter into agreements with indigenous governing bodies for the purpose of establishing joint decision-making or consent with respect to the use of statutory powers.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you believe there are benefits with this approach? Should Bill C-15 be amended to include this provision?

[David Chartrand]

I actually complimented Premier Horgan and the rest of them in British Columbia for their far-reaching vision of moving on this pathway. If you look at the first nations in British Columbia, they are very well spoken and very well versed on the rights and issues of their matters, and so are the Métis trying to find their place in British Columbia.

When you look at it, overall, I think it's a true setting of the foundation for what B.C. is going to do for business, and how everybody's going to be a player and a partner. I think it's really going to assure comfort for industry. Hopefully, as that balance grows, we'll see less and less hostility. If we go to the east coast, there's a fight on lobsters, for example, right now.

If we could find a balance for how we work together, so that people are not going to be fearful of a change.... As you know, everybody is scared of change, everybody. I don't care who you are. You hear change, and you get your back up, but it's very clear, I think, that B.C. is setting the path forward. It's putting out an example that it can work and it will work, but everybody has to be committed to it.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

Brenda Gunn, a law professor from the University of Manitoba, shared with the committee that Bill C-15 was “an important step toward reconciliation, toward recognizing inherent human rights, toward a fairer and more just Canada for all.”

Do you agree with this assertion?

[David Chartrand]

I agree 100%. I think it's truly a blueprint that sets a foundation of clarity for everybody to work together. I think everybody wants that. Industry wants it. Political parties want it. Governments want it. Provincial and municipal governments and just people want it.

I think she's absolutely right. It sets the foundation of clarity for how we could all come together. It becomes a win-win situation instead of win and lose. I think it's a great opportunity for us to embrace this, but we need to make it happen. We can't let it not happen.

It has to get royal assent, or we're going to lose it. If something happens now.... We're in a minority government state. There could be an election and then it will die again. We have seen three examples already, Tina Keeper, Saganash and now we have this new bill.

If it dies again, what are we telling the rest of the world Canada stands for? Reconciliation is nothing but a word after that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. I think that's a really important thing for all of us to be considering.

I'm curious if you could just talk about how Bill C-15 would support the advancement of Métis rights in Canada, and if so how that's going to roll out. What that's going to mean for those communities, for your communities?

[David Chartrand]

I don't think it advances Métis rights because we already have those rights. I think what it does is sets the clarity of the process, sets the clarity for how people and industry need to work with us.

I will give you a perfect example. I speak highly of Enbridge. People have criticized Enbridge in the past, but I speak highly of them because they knocked on our door and said, “Look, we want to work with you, we want to sit down together, we want to partner with you, but we don't want a one-year agreement.” It's typical of industry to come in, get their product done, get the pipe in line, walk away and say, “See you 50 years from now.”

Enbridge has changed that ideology, and actually are changing their method of hiring, their method of procurement, all of these things they are working on right now. We have a 50-year agreement we're working towards right now.

I think he said it right, the president of Enbridge. I will say it very clearly. He said, “You know what? We all know I will be gone and so will you, David, but we have to come back in 50 years to change that pipeline again no matter what, or we have to take it out. One way or another it only lasts 50 years and we have to come back. That's the law.”

At the end of the day, he said he would rather have a relationship now and stay with us for 50 years so that when we come back there's not a fight, there's not a disagreement and we're all working on the same path.

This is the kind of ideology that's slowly being embraced by industry. They see that partnership is the way to go. I believe that in my leadership. I believe that's what made us very successful. I had three people on staff. I have 900 on staff now, and I run a lot of businesses. When you look at it overall, you can see that from a partnership perspective it's always good to be win-win.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

In the last committee, the national chief from the AFN recommended that our committee get rid of the preamble's paragraph 6, which states:

Whereas First Nations, Inuit and the Métis Nation have, throughout history and to this day, lived in the lands that are now in Canada with their distinct identities, cultures and ways of life;

Do you have any comments about his proposed amendment?

[David Chartrand]

First, I was quite surprised that they're making amendments because I know how strongly Perry has been advocating for getting this thing to royal assent. It's his dream and his aspiration to get it there. By making amendments, you hold everything back, so I was taken a little aback on why amendments would be coming in so late in the game.

The statement they're trying to make is that the Métis do not have land across Canada, which is true. However, we are a nation, and we had land, owned land, ran land and controlled land in the Prairies before Canada became Canada. We have been around for 300 years. We have battles from 1816 on, with 10 battles we fought for this country, so when you look at it overall, we have a long existing place in the history of western Canada. If you look on page 6, you'll find the first bullet where I make it crystal clear that the Métis nation existed in Canada before Canada was formed.

Their position was that the preamble should not state that the Métis nation, Inuit and first nations have similarly lived in all of the land. That I agree with, but in the land of the Prairies, there's not a doubt. History has shown us, and the Supreme Court has recognized that. I think that was their intent, but I was a little bit taken aback by the amendments coming in. I didn't expect that from AFN because I know they want royal assent as badly as I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much.

We move now to five-minute rounds of questions.

I have on my list, Mr. Schmale, Mr. van Koeverden, Ms. DeBellefeuille, Rachel Blaney, Eric Melillo and one other.

Mr. Schmale, you have five minutes. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chartrand. I appreciate the contribution.

I appreciate the conversation we're having today. There's a lot of great input. I may need some additional clarification, because you did talk about free, prior and informed consent not being a veto. I appreciate that.

Grand Chief Bellegarde of the AFN has been quoted a number of times as saying, “You simply cannot tell a people that they have no right to say 'no' to what happens to them. Imagine a system where you cannot say no. That’s what we have had for more than a century under the Indian Act. That’s what led us to the mess we are in today.” I do agree with that.

Based on what you said, based what Chief Bellegarde said, what do we do when we're in a conflict situation, say for a major infrastructure project? If we have one nation against another nation, one that wants it and one that doesn't, who makes that final decision? Is that still the Government of Canada? I think that's the clarification we're looking for. I know that could be the next step after C-15 too.

[David Chartrand]

The best way to answer, Jamie, is this: We have indigenous governments already, and if you look at [Technical difficulty—Editor] challenges that we've faced in this country for a while, you have the hereditary chiefs and the elected chiefs. What's important is to let them work it out. That's their business, not ours. It's not yours. It's not mine. It's their business. They need to recognize that. We need to respect their governments and their structures.

From that perspective, I think, as we move forward, we're just making transitional ideology changes in this country, recognizing indigenous governments to be truly equal governments. We're not even there yet, but we're getting our mindset to move towards that. It's like me getting a group of Canadians together and saying, “I represent Canada now. I'm now the new Prime Minister of Canada because I have a group of citizens behind me now.” You would tell me, “You're crazy. Go to the hell. I got elected as an MP. I sit in the Conservative Party. We are the opposition at this point in time, maybe a future government.” You would not accept that I get a group of people together overnight, call myself a new name and become Prime Minister.

We have indigenous governments. Let them do their jobs, and let them clarify their own issues. That's up to them. When we try to stick our noses into their business, that is where trouble lies.

For example, in the federation, in 1967 we created our Constitution. It's been standing strong since 1967. We are recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as the rightful voices of our government for our people, so from that perspective I think it's very clear that we're getting there. We still have a way to go unfortunately for citizens to recognize that indigenous people have governments that are equal to federal, provincial and municipal governments, that we have the same jurisdictional powers as their own governments. Once we get there, I think we'll solve that problem.

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

Okay. I appreciate that, and I do accept that. Each nation has their own way of governance, and I accept that. Absolutely, I agree.

The issue still is, I guess, that if one says yes and one says no to infrastructure projects, and if I'm a company and I still can't get consensus, who makes that final decision?

[David Chartrand]

The government, just like you would.

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

Okay.

[David Chartrand]

If you were sitting as a government, the government makes that decision. Everybody has opinions. If I'm the president of my government, my cabinet and my government will make that decision for all of us.

To show our advanced thinking on it, Jamie...and this could be something people could look at. We have what is called resolution number 8. I have 140 locals from all the villages and communities right across this province that make up our grassroots voices and then compile themselves to give us direction at our regional assemblies and annual assemblies. Resolution number 8 was unanimously adopted by 3,000 leaders and people in this province to say this: that no industry, no indigenous local or Métis local on its own can negotiate with the ministry without the Métis government sitting at the table to ensure all citizens are being protected. From that perspective, it's been adopted by all our local, regional and provincial leaders.

We're going on that pathway. I think many will follow. It's a matter of getting there, allowing governments to do their job like we allow you as a federal government. We have no choice but to allow you. You're the government, and we have to let you and fight with you and argue with you until we get our way, maybe, but at the end of the day, we have to respect you as a government, and we'll get there. Let the governments grow—they're growing—but treat them as one.

You'll call me an organization, but don't call me that. Call me a government. I am a government. I take that personally, because we work so hard to ensure that we operate and are responsible as a government.

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

I think the chair is going to cut me off very shortly.