Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

With quorum, I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

In Ottawa, we always acknowledge that we meet on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Various of us around the country are in other lands. In my case, it would be the lands of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee and Chonnonton peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, 2021, the committee is continuing its study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Once again, to ensure an orderly meeting, speak and listen in the official language of your choice. At the bottom of your screen, using the globe icon—you can see it there—select either English or French. As you speak, you can change languages without changing that selection.

Ensure your video is turned on. When you speak, speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I must inform the committee, pursuant to the motion of March 9, 2021, that Al Benoit, Celeste McKay, Lorraine Whitman and Melanie Omeniho have not completed the technical pretest.

With us today by video conference from the Métis National Council are David Chartrand, vice-president and national spokesperson; Al Benoit, chief of staff; and Celeste McKay, consultant.

Thank you all.

Just before I ask Mr. Chartrand to present, I understand that we have a hard stop at a quarter past the hour of our meeting normal time, so we may have to adjust the time as we go along.

Mr. Chartrand, I'm asking you now to open up for six minutes on your presentation to committee.

Please go ahead.

[David Chartrand, Vice-President and National Spokeperson, Métis National Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing us to come to this very important committee. I want to start off by saying good morning to everyone and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to speak today. My apologies for a late submission that is coming your way in French translation. We don't have a lot of funding in this particular area, so we always seem to be late. I want to express my apologies to our friends in Quebec. We will never forget them for standing up for Louis Riel. We do apologize to them for not having the French translation on time.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Métis nation in support of Bill C-15 and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. The Métis nation is a distinct indigenous nation based in western Canada. We are a rights-holding nation under section 35 of the Constitution, and we are a partner in Canada's Confederation.

For the past year, the Métis nation has worked collaboratively with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Government of Canada to develop legislation using former Bill C-262 as the floor. Bill C-15 is the result of this process. The human rights contained in the UN declaration are the minimum standards for our survival, dignity and well-being, and Bill C-15 sets out an effective process to implement these rights in Canadian law.

In 2008, former MP Tina Keeper introduced a private member's bill to implement the UN declaration in Canada. In 2016, Romeo Saganash did the same under Bill C-262. We are here today because, unfortunately, these bills did not receive royal assent. On the positive side, we have the foundation that these previous bills have provided, and we have the momentum to make change right now. We must not allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. We have waited for too long to see the rights of indigenous peoples fully recognized.

We believe that passing this bill into law is critical to a future that respects our rights as a nation. We urge members to expedite the process to ensure that Bill C-15 is passed in this session of Parliament. We urge members to reject proposals for amendments that would impede this objective, including the amendments put forth by the Assembly of First Nations and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I will speak to this more in a few minutes.

In November 2020, we held nationwide engagement sessions, at which we heard from a broad range of Métis nation citizens from across our homeland. I think each of you has a copy of this. You can read it. Hopefully you've read it. If not, please read it. We heard from Métis nation women, elders, youth, persons with disabilities, gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons. We heard from our leaders within Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak-Women of the Métis Nation, which is part of the governing structure of the Métis nation.

In our engagement processes, the citizens of the Métis nation voiced their strong support for the implementation of the UN declaration, and expressed hope that this bill will become law and positively impact their lives and futures. During these sessions, our citizens emphasized a number of areas in which their rights matter in their daily lives. These included education, language, housing, health, child and family services, jobs and economic opportunities. They also feel strongly about their right to self-determination and jurisdiction over lands, territories and resources. We are strong protectors of our land. We also understand the role that responsible resource development plays in the economic security and well-being of our communities and the prosperity of Canada as a whole.

The Métis nation is uniquely positioned to strike a balance between the environmental and economic factors of our homeland and resources. The recognition of our rights supports this. Our Métis nation governments must have a central role in implementation, and we will work in partnership with the Crown and with industry when it comes to our land.

The common theme in all of this is our inherent right to self-determination. This is our cardinal right. Much of the discussion around this bill and the declaration has centred around free, prior and informed consent. This is a natural and necessary part of our right to self-determination. I will speak more on this later.

Our lives are rich and deep, and our self-determination is exhibited in many different areas. As you can see from the priorities of our citizens and from reading the declaration itself, our self-determination fortifies our citizens, communities and nation in a holistic manner.

Bill C-92, passed in June, 2019, is a good example. It was developed in partnership with indigenous peoples and makes good progress toward implementing the UN declaration in the area of child and family services. It does this by affirming our right to self-determination and affirming our jurisdiction over our nation's children. We continue to support this approach to implementation.

It's also important to the Métis nation that implementation of the UN declaration, through Bill C-15, is done in a meaningful, transparent and accountable manner. The inclusion of the reporting requirements and an oversight mechanism to provide recourse for rights violations are key additions that strengthen this bill.

Likewise, the success of the action plan is crucial for meaningful implementation. The declaration affirms the right to self-determination and supports the role of indigenous governments in representing their nations. The action plan must reflect this. It must be developed in true partnership between the Government of Canada and indigenous governments. It must not be unduly limited in scope. It must be properly resourced so that indigenous peoples in Canada have the means to truly implement their rights.

I'd like to turn now to the issue of certainty. As with Bill C-262, claims that this bill will result in uncertainty and threaten economic opportunities has been a major point of contention. Let me be clear. Economic growth is very important to the Métis nation and to Canada. Free, prior and informed consent is not a veto. Implementing the UN declaration will result in more certainty, not less.

We must recognize that we have been living in this uncertainty for years. This has resulted in using the court system to try to find certainty. We fought for our land rights in court for 32 years in the Manitoba Metis Federation case. We'll always stand up for our homeland and our self-determination, but Bill C-15 offers us a better way forward than fighting battles in courts. This is why I call the UN declaration a blueprint for clarity.

The market always tries to find greater certainty. This point has been raised several times before this committee, but look at how the market has responded to the uncertainty we have been living in. Industry has moved towards forming more respectful relationships with indigenous peoples, and some companies such as the Mining Association of Canada have even looked to incorporate policies on free, prior and informed consent under processes. This is how they have found greater certainty. The idea that moving further towards this approach through Bill C-15 would result in less certainty is nonsense.

I would hold up the productive relationship the Métis nation has formed with industry groups, such as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Mining Association of Canada and Enbridge, as further evidence that Bill C-15 will create greater certainty. These relationships have translated into projects that have provided tangible benefits for the Métis nation and for Canada, such as projects that the Manitoba Metis Federation has undertaken with Enbridge.

Free, prior and informed consent is key to our ability to participate meaningfully in the decisions that impact our lives, our land and our rights. This is necessary if our right to self-determination is to be upheld. We will be involved from the very beginning as partners in natural resource projects on other developments. We will look together for the best way forward in a way that builds consent.

This is not a veto. I repeat that again: This is not a veto. It does not undermine or override due process. There is no due process if we are excluded. Free, prior and informed consent ensures due process by ensuring our participation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chartrand, but we're well over six minutes.

[David Chartrand]

Okay. I usually don't read, Mr. Chairman. I speak off the cuff, but I wanted to give this particular committee the respect and the information it deserves on such an important message. I think it was very important for us to share as best we can.

We've made it very clear from our perspective that, in the matters the AFN brought before you regarding amendments to be made, there's obviously a misreading of the preamble and paragraph 6. I want to conclude these comments. From our view, it's crystal clear that the Métis nation existed in western Canada before Canada was ever formed.

When you look at all of this, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you could take the time to read the rest of the report yourselves, and again I apologize to my friends in Quebec. We will get it to you hopefully by today.

I want to make it clear. Without Bill C-15 coming into play, there's going to be uncertainty. There are going to be more fights in courts. More battles will take place. Again, if I'm a shareholder, a stockholder, I sure as hell would not want to be putting my money on a particular unknown factor when I have a blueprint here in Canada.

Recently we were ranked number one in the world, Mr. Chairman. If we want to maintain that leadership, this is a good example. We need to pass this, and we need to do this together. I think we can do it together. I know that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. Chartrand, I need to get to our other—

[David Chartrand]

Okay, I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I apologize with the greatest respect, but part of the exercise is to have the dialogue—

[David Chartrand]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We want to move ahead.

Mr. Viersen, you have six minutes. Go ahead.

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

I want to thank Mr. Chartrand for being here today. I really appreciate it. He always says he speaks straight from the heart, and he usually does and I much appreciate that.

Mr. Chartrand, probably the main issue is, in the purpose of the act there are just two parts—that's in clause 4 of the act. The second part of it is to provide a framework for the Canadian government to implement the declaration. I don't have a problem with that part. Where Conservatives have a problem is where it says, in paragraph (a), that the declaration will be a universal “human rights instrument with application in Canadian law”. I don't doubt that it has application in Canadian law, but we can't just insert the declaration as Canadian law. We can't just declare it to be Canadian law, because it's much more of a framework. It's an aspirational document.

I use UN documents and UN protocols often to identify.... I've been recently quoted in the media as saying that duty to consult is sufficient. I think it's a system that's working. It's a system that continues to work its way out. I would recognize that I used the Palermo protocol, which is a UN document, for identifying victims of human trafficking. I want to bring Canada in alignment with the Palermo protocol. I used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a framework to give me an idea of how we bring Canada into alignment. I also would use the UNDRIP. Okay, this is a framework. How do we bring Canada in alignment with it? It just doesn't translate into Canadian law directly.

This is to you, Mr. Chartrand. This is where I go with every witness. The duty to consult, as it's been worked out over generations, and free, prior and informed consent, are we on the same wavelength with these two terms, or are we going to be introducing a whole new concept into the way we do relationships between first nations, Métis people and the Government of Canada?

[David Chartrand]

Thank you for that question.

As I said in my earlier references, this is the blueprint that gives clarity for everyone. I think when you look at it from the context.... That's why, if you heard me loud and clear, this is not a veto. You could record me over and over, and we would have courts that can use that as a clear example of my statement. We do not see it as a veto. We see it as clear guidance, a blueprint.

We'll look at the domestic law process of our situation in this country and the laws that are impacted. Section 35 has a clarity of duty to consult and sets an establishment, but usually it's after the fact that we're finding ourselves in the duty to consult process in this country. Already, by that time, legal arguments are being filed in courts, positions are being tagged or blockades are happening, and people have not started any discussion.

I think this particular aspect of having this bill will provide assurance and clarity. Let's understand this. No business is going to come in and.... Let's look at mining, for example. Let's choose that one. If you're going to invest in mining, you're not coming in and starting a mine tomorrow morning. It would take about 10 years or 20 years of planning before you ever go down that road.

I think this sets a clear foundation for industry, which will now have more comfort. If I'm a shareholder, an investor, I sure as hell won't want to put my money in some industry that I'm going to find out will be held up in the courts for the next 10 years. This will set the foundation of clarity between section 35 and ensuring free and prior consent. It gives you the blueprint of how industry will work with indigenous governments. It's very clear. It sets out the two. The two work actually very well together, and there will be clarity for both parties to understand, as well as provincial and municipal governments.

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

You don't think that there will be any muddying of the waters. The language is so different. “Duty to consult” and “free, prior and informed consent” are quite different terms.

[David Chartrand]

No, they're not. I don't see it that way, because I see duty to consult as responsibility. It's a legal responsibility that industry and governments have. Free and prior—

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

It's unique to Canada. Your entire lifetime has been consumed with the duty to consult, the discussion around duty to consult, the court challenges, the government decisions that have taken place with that. Now to introduce some new terms into that discussion, are you not at all worried that it will just set us back some more, cause new court cases, all this kind of stuff?

[David Chartrand]

I think I'm much older than you. During my lifetime, duty to consult just resonated itself into the works of our language today.

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

Yes.

[David Chartrand]

I mean, 30 or 40 years ago you didn't even see this happening. Only in the last several decades has the duty to consult been grabbing at better footing in this country. When you start to translate free and prior consent, let's understand really clearly what is actually....

I deal with industry a lot. We're very strong economic thinkers in the Métis nation. I meet with Enbridge, for example, every second month. The president and I have a discussion on the future and on how our relationship looks. We have that relationship. What we make very clear is that these types of bills, like this particular one, are setting the blueprint for us on how we come together, how we quit fighting in the courts and how we quit holding up production and opportunity. In Manitoba, for example, our mining institutions have gone down. They should be going up. There should be more investment. If you're shy to come and invest because you don't know what will happen to your investments, you won't come knocking on the door of a province in western Canada, for example.

I think these two will work together. There will be a lot of clarity between the two. I think one of the strongest issues you have as a Conservative is the issue of veto. I am making it very clear, right here before you, before this country, that this is not a veto. You can take that to any courtroom. This is not a veto for indigenous people. It's a blueprint between us, industry and government. We should have done it 20 years ago or 50 years ago. We'd have been further ahead in this country, beyond anybody else.

I think it's very clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you.

Mr. Powlowski, you have six minutes.

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

I think this is probably one of the most interesting panels in discussing this.

Let me first ask this. In UNDRIP is there any mention of people of mixed descent? I was looking through it, and I don't think so. I do see in article 33 that indigenous peoples have the right to determine their membership. Is there any other reference to people of mixed descent?

If you have to look, don't worry.

[David Chartrand]

No, I don't have to look. I can tell you right now. I think the message in UNDRIP is very clear. It allows indigenous governments to be governments. It sets the clarity of recognizing them as governments. The Métis nation has the responsibility—governments have the responsibility—to establish who the Métis nation is and who belongs to the Métis nation. It's up to us to decide, not you. It's very clear that the particular style of language in here assures us as indigenous people that we will govern ourselves, government to government. That's what it's all about, nation to nation.

On the question of whether it allows mixed ancestries inside there, or allows that group or this group, allow us as governments to establish our own challenges of how we overcome some of these unknowns that this Constitution in Canada has created for all of us.

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

The reason I ask this is that I know this is a United Nations document. Throughout the world, there are a lot of people of mixed descent. For example, in Mexico the majority of the people are mestizo, which is a combination of indigenous and white descent. My wife is Filipina. In the Philippines they have their indigenous groups too. They're often intermixed with the other local populations.

In developing UNDRIP, I would have thought that the various countries around the world would consider where people of mixed descent lie with respect to UNDRIP. I don't know if you were part of the development of UNDRIP at the United Nations, but I was wondering what the discussion was at the United Nations about people of mixed descent and where they fell in that. I know that a number of other countries throughout the world have enacted some kind of legislation giving legal power to UNDRIP in those jurisdictions.

What has been the interpretation in those jurisdictions as to people of mixed descent? I throw that open to any of you out there.

[David Chartrand]

Let me start off this way, Mr. Powlowski.

I travel the world quite a bit. I'm doing some work with indigenous people in Colombia. I've been going back and forth for a number of years now. We've been involved in the United Nations declaration since 1984-85, when the first discussions were taking place at that level, and of course, our president, Clément Chartier, is still really actively involved in international matters.

If you look at the mestizo, as you call them, in their own countries, they are working out their details of who's who. It's no different if you go to Australia, where they call them “yellow”. They're saying they're a mixed people. They're not really us because they have different blood in their veins and a different colour to their skin. There are different versions of how people are looking at it, but what I do recognize when I travel the world is that they're working towards it. They're working out how they all interrelate, understand each other and respect each other's jurisdictions, and each of them is formulating their own levels of voices and levels of positions.

No matter where you travel in the world, you see that happening. It's even in Japan, where they came to see me regarding the Ainu, who are fearful they're going to be leaving this world and losing their very existence—there are only about 20,000 of them left—so they came to ask us how we survived.

There are people out there trying to formulate their existence, their legal rights, and as the world proceeds, if we're still going to be ranked number one, I think we let the indigenous governments figure out our own problems. Nobody should tell us how our government should look.

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

Let me bring it closer to home now. I think we've discussed this before. I worked in Norway House for a while, and in Norway House, there are people who are status and then there are people who are non-status, so I think basically Métis.

Is there any difference in what UNDRIP will mean to those two different communities, or are they basically the same under UNDRIP?

[David Chartrand]

In western Canada, you're first nation, Métis nation or Inuit. Those are the three peoples that you will find in western Canada. From our perspective, there are a lot of similarities in the matters that we look for in the environment and the lands and mutual sharing of how we work on the lands. Our governance systems are somewhat different and our electoral systems are somewhat different, but at the end of the day, we each recognize our own jurisdiction.

It's very clear that this has been worked out. This has been going on for a long, long time. I think where the challenge lies for many is when legislation comes and changes, whether it's first nations under the Indian Act.... It changed a lot of their challenges, and they're struggling to get the balance of control away from Canada.

When you look at it, there's a clear understanding between both parties. You come to the Prairies, and you'll see they know who the Métis nation are, they know who the first nations are and they know who the Inuit are, especially. There's not a big population, but they're in Manitoba, for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

That brings us pretty much to time, Marcus. Thank you.

Ms. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for six minutes.