Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What we just heard clearly illustrates why I wanted to support the Conservative Party motion. We need to talk about the issue of fake indigenous people and expand on that.

What the community of Kebaowek is going through is quite peculiar, but it is not a unique case.

I would like to hear your opinion, Chief Haymond, on the Chalk River issue, which directly affects your ancestral lands. A legal battle has been under way for about 10 years, and your case is currently before the Supreme Court, because others wanted you to give the Chalk River project social licence on behalf of the indigenous people.

Can you tell us more about that?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Yes, I'd be very happy to tell you about that. Outside of economic development, our interests are continually being usurped by entities that are created by the federal government. Algonquins of Ontario is probably the most profound example of how non-indigenous people have been empowered and given recognition that they don't deserve.

Algonquins of Ontario was created by the federal government solely for the purpose of negotiating and voting on a land claim that directly impacts the Algonquin nation. The 7,000 non-indigenous individuals, who simply have to tie themselves to a root ancestor from the 1600s or 1700s to claim being indigenous, are now being used by the government and agencies like CNL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to provide manufactured consent when first nations communities like mine and the Algonquin nation stand up and say no to destructive projects that are happening on their territory.

We vehemently oppose the whole issue of an NSDF—which for all intents and purposes is for nuclear waste—being built on the side of the Ottawa River. We've challenged this government and the CNSC on its implementation of UNDRIP. When we do this, the government, because it's created entities like Algonquins of Ontario, approaches organizations like Algonquins of Ontario and says, “What's your opinion on this project?” By and large, they will support just about any project the federal government asks them to support on the basis that, at the end of the day, they will secure economic benefits from that support through the issuing of contracts for a whole host of work on the site in pre- and post-monitoring. We are continually finding ourselves in tough situations because these entities are being asked their opinion when they are creations of government and do not have the same standing we do as first nations citizens.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

What is the legal status of Algonquins of Ontario, or AOO?

If Bill C‑53were to pass, what effect would that have on the legitimacy of the Algonquins of Ontario? I would remind you that the committee had to report this bill to the House with amendments.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

There's a bit of a difference between Algonquins of Ontario—because it was created by the federal government, as I said, for the simple purpose of negotiating a land claim—and the Métis Nation of Ontario. They're a special animal unto themselves. We are directly impacted by the Métis Nation of Ontario because they claim rights, title and benefits on land that directly overlaps with the Kebaowek First Nation and the Algonquin people.

Bill C-53 has less of an impact on the AOO, but if Bill C-53 were to go forward, it would give rights, title and recognition to a group that simply didn't exist prior to contact. There are huge issues when government creates legislation for the benefit of recognition. Doing so does a disservice to the first nations people whose lands and territory the government is granting rights to.

It would absolutely be a dangerous precedent for Bill C-53 to move ahead. It would put us in direct conflict with the Métis Nation of Ontario.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you for that clarification.

Given the current context and everything that is going on with some of the Métis national movements, do you think Bill C‑53 should be abandoned by the minister?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Absolutely, without a doubt. We've been advocating for that since the minister dropped this bill, along with the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, the Chiefs of Ontario and others, who have clearly recognized that the Métis Nation of Ontario's legitimacy and claim to fame come from using our ancestors as ways and means to justify its existence when in fact it's far removed from our communities. Again, granting it recognition through Bill C-53 would be a travesty and an important injustice for indigenous people across the country and, more importantly, directly for the Algonquin nation, whose title and lands are being claimed by these fake Indians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Next we're going to Ms. Idlout for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

Chief Haymond, thank you for appearing at the last minute for this important issue.

When you share with us the deep impacts when pretendianism happens, you clearly state how damaging it is for indigenous people. Just as a case in point, in Nunavut, sponsorship that was meant to go to Inuit students went to non-indigenous people. They used fraud to get sponsorship, so the costs are high.

Based on what I understand, you either filed a human rights complaint with the United Nations or brought issues to the United Nations about indigenous identity fraud this past summer. I wonder whether you could share with us what you shared at the UN.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm not too sure whether I'm getting my facts straight, but it sounds like the Abenaki and the Kebaowek went to the United Nations to make a complaint about indigenous identity fraud.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I believe it was the Abenaki Nation that went there and made that complaint. It was highly publicized and in the media quite a bit, so I know for a fact that it was the Abenakis who raised this issue about pretend Indians.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for that clarification.

Based on your experience, because you know the deep impacts and what the federal government needs to be doing, could you share your expertise or some recommendations on what the federal government should do, understanding that we need to respect the self-determination of first nations, Métis and Inuit? What role can the federal government play to make sure there's more decisive action when pretendians become obvious?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I think there are a number of things the federal government can do. One of them, most importantly, is to stop developing policies that create institutions like the Algonquins of Ontario and giving recognition to the Métis Nation of Ontario through legislation like Bill C-53 without clearly understanding what these entities will do once they're created.

The bigger challenge, and I think the message I want to send the federal government, is that as a status first nation citizen, my first nation indigenousness is determined through the Indian Act, through subsections 6(1) and 6(2). Clearly, there are a number of rules within the Indian Act that tell me whether I'm status or non-status. The government, when it's convenient, as in the case of the Algonquins of Ontario, can simply develop a new policy and create new Indians who do not have to follow the same rules and pass the same tests that I do to be granted status.

My grandparents, my great-grandparents, my parents and I have all had to have indigenous ancestors to be recognized by the Canadian government as Indian. However, when it's convenient, they can create Indians like the Algonquins of Ontario through a policy that clearly gives them different rules from what we have to follow. To become an Algonquin of Ontario, you simply have to tie yourself to one of 12 root ancestors who have been identified, dating back to the 16th or 17th century.

There are two different sets of rules in this country when it comes to being first nations. There are those of us who are required to prove our indigenousness through the Indian Act and the rules that apply there, but there's a much lesser standard the government uses in the case of the Algonquins of Ontario because they simply have an end objective they want to achieve.

For me, at the end of the day, if we want to be recognized as first nations or indigenous, we should all have to be recognized under the same rules of the game and not have different rules for different groups and different entities, especially one that has a lesser standard than we have to meet to be considered Indian by the Canadian government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

That concludes the first round of questioning. Given the timing, I am going to abridge the second round. We'll do three minutes for the Conservatives and the Liberals, and then we'll do two minutes for the Bloc and the NDP. That's because we have another panel coming in about 15 minutes.

With that, we'll go to Mr. Shields for three minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here, Chief.

I'll quickly go to the structure of the program as it exists now. Loopholes can be found in legislation. Was the joint application a loophole that was taken advantage of? Do you believe how the structure for applying was developed, with the joint application, was a loophole in legislation that led to fraud?

[Chief Lance Haymond]

I don't necessarily think it's a loophole. I think it's one of those elements that may not have been given enough attention. At the end of the day, there need to be opportunities for partnerships when indigenous businesses and individuals do not have all the capacities to take advantage of opportunities.

Absolutely, there has to be an opportunity for us to partner with those who have capacity and experience and who can assist in ensuring that we get a share, but again, we need to ensure rules are in place that clearly define how those partnerships should exist. That needs to happen. If not, the system can be fraught with potential fraud, for sure.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

One of the points the auditor who was involved with this program made was that this was a difficult part of it. They also said the other part was that they were no longer able to identify...and it was turned over to lower-level people in the government, who had no understanding of the program, to ask questions. He believes those two things created a problem for access to the program by those who should have access to it.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

That's probably a relatively fair statement, but a lot of this would be addressed and cleared up if the rules were clearly outlined on the front end of the process to avoid the potential for fraud.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

You explained that the role you believe indigenous people should be involved in is one of identification, and much more at the forefront of it rather than the process we've had before.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Yes, absolutely. Again, it's really hard for first nation people to take charge and benefit from a process when we've had no input into how it was developed. Most certainly, we feel the impacts when there are shortcomings in a process designed by government. I'm always a firm believer that when it's first nation-developed and first nation-led, when it directly affects us, that's the best way forward.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

To the point of whether one person or one business is taking advantage, or whether it's 1% or 20%, it doesn't matter. If the program is wrong, the program is wrong, and it needs to be changed, as you said, for your indigenous involvement in it.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

Yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

We're going to Mr. Hanley for three minutes.