Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Clément Chartier]

Will not.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Okay. I just wanted that clarity. Thank you.

[Clément Chartier]

There need to be changes. Depending on what the changes are, we may or may not support it—or we may support it if it's meant for indigenous organizations, which we're not. We are a government, so if this non-profit corporation....

We didn't even study to see if we want a non-profit organization or what it is we want. In fact, our preference as a government is that we would be engaging this on a government-to-government basis with more powers for indigenous governments. Again, maybe you need a separate one with governments and one with non-profit corporations. Within the Métis National Council, you now have four non-governmental organizations making it up. They are not governments. They hope to be, and we hope they won't be, because we don't want to be divided along provincial lines—

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I have such limited time and I want to drill down a little more into a couple of things.

[Clément Chartier]

Yes.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

The way the legislation is currently written, it's supposed to gather data from all levels of government—federal, provincial, indigenous governments and all organizations. One of the challenges we're concerned with is that there's a lack of independence, potentially, in how this thing is being structured. The minister has an awful lot of control in appointing the first board of directors. That board of directors will create the process for which future board members will be elected by a membership that's yet undefined.

I have a couple of questions in there. Would you agree or disagree that there should be a broader scope of people who definitely have a seat at this board of directors? Would you have an opinion at all on who should be the members of this non-profit corporation? That's a yet undefined term, as far as we can see.

[Clément Chartier]

My government—and I personally, but I'm not here to represent myself—is unlike any other government, or, if you want to call us an organization, we'd be unlike any other organization. As I've said ad nauseam, and I will say it again here today, the Métis and our residential schools are not covered by the apology. We are not part of the mandate of the TRC. We don't believe we're covered by the recommendations, because they had no mandate. We may fall into it by happenstance, but none of ours....

In fact, I haven't even read them, and I was president at the time. When it was released, I was two blocks away in my apartment, watching it live at the Delta, an event I wasn't even invited to, so it has nothing to do with us, really. I think that's one of the points that President Chartrand is making. We can deal with you, being the government, particularly the federal government, on a bilateral basis, on a government-to-government basis, to address the issues that remain outstanding, in addition to....

You know very well Île-à-la-Crosse, in your riding.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Absolutely.

[Clément Chartier]

I did try to get meetings with you. I was in your riding, but they never happened, so I moved out. I went to Saskatoon.

In any event, that's an outstanding issue. The sixties scoop for Métis is outstanding. The day schools are outstanding. There's the child welfare situation. There's a lot of stuff outstanding. Now that we have a government-to-government relationship, now that the federal government has an agreement with us that we are a recognized government and are in the process of concluding a treaty, which will get the force of law through the legislation, we'll be protected under section 35.

We're not sure—and I won't pretend to be able to say their answers—whether there should be more or who they should be, because it really has nothing to do with us. When I say that we could support it, we could support it for those it's aimed for. We're outside of it, so in that sense it doesn't matter whether we support it or don't support it.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

So you don't want—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Vidal. Your time is up.

It's now over to Mr. McLeod for six minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witness for appearing today. I think that he and I are probably the only two residential school survivors in the room right now. It's really good to hear his point of view.

As an indigenous person and a Métis, I was quite excited to see this board structured, set up and moving forward.

There are many things happening under the label of reconciliation. UNDRIP is one of them, along with the Truth and Reconciliation recommendations and some of the changes to self-government policies. There are many things we can point to that are happening and quite exciting in the world of indigenous people. I think most people would agree.

Most indigenous governments would agree that there has to be oversight. Most indigenous governments don't trust governments. It's important to be able to make sure we're still moving forward to reach the goals we set up.

When it comes to the composition and work of the national council for reconciliation, I think there are some important seats that need to be held by people who went through the residential schools and federal day schools. They need to be included and involved. Right now, I see many national organizations pushing for more seats.

I want to get your opinion on what you think about having seats set aside for people who are residential school and federal day school survivors, or maybe even traditional knowledge holders—people from your organization and government who carry a lot of knowledge and can take it forward.

[Clément Chartier]

I have to confess that I haven't studied it. I was asked late Monday to appear on behalf of President Chartrand. In fact, after I wrote my brief, I found the news articles referred to and the comments he made. I don't have a staff yet who can do that for me.

I agree that it should be weighted more toward survivors, who are the ones who have suffered the brunt of the residential schools. I agree, though, that national indigenous organizations, if they truly represent who they say they do, have a right to be there. I would have no qualms with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Assembly of First Nations being there to represent their people. I'm sure they would do the right things in appointing people who have been affected by the residential school system. Their wisdom would go in that way.

I know there are others to be selected. I think those others should come specifically from.... I use the term “survivor”, but I don't really embrace that term. Those who went through the experience should be there, for sure.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

My second question is on the goals of the national council. The stated goal of the national council is to advance the efforts of reconciliation with indigenous people, which is a very broad goal. It's going to be done through efforts like developing a national action plan. It will mean conducting research and educating the public.

I want to ask you this: In your opinion, what are some areas and issues you would like to see the national council focus on?

[Clément Chartier]

Therein lies the problem as well.

Our government—and I think this is what President Chartrand was getting toward—doesn't need any intermediary between the national government of the Red River Métis and the federal government or any other government. We should be dealing with all of these issues on a bilateral basis ourselves. If there is going to be—and I imagine there will be—a body such as this, then fine, but it shouldn't be a replacement of legitimate indigenous governments dealing with other governments.

There are three orders of government in this country. There are indigenous governments, the federal government and provincial governments. Under them, you have municipal governments. We need to ensure that creating this council does not diminish the role and authority of legitimate indigenous governments.

I'm glad you raised the mandate. I read it, and I have to finally read one or two of the recommendations. As I said, I've never read the calls to action, but I read those ones that were mentioned. It talks in broad terms, but my sense is still that it's going to be more of a mandate. We'll be looking at the implementation of the calls to action rather than something broader. In previous discussions with then-Minister Bennett, she'd say, “No, no. It's not just the calls to action. It's going to be across the board on everything”, but it doesn't also say that in the bill. I suppose if it did, we'd question more why a non-profit corporation is being put in a position where it's going to be usurping, potentially, the role of legitimate indigenous governments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

We now go to Mrs. Gill for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chartier, thank you for your testimony.

I found the idea that just came up here about the commission's calls to action interesting. We had not heard that before.

You're not familiar with the calls to action.

Can you tell us why not, whether it's for your own reasons or your organization's?

[Clément Chartier]

I stated this, but I'll state it again. Primarily, it's because we were not included. The Métis nation was not included. The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2006-2007 dealt only with residential schools that were paid for by the federal government.

I was on the floor of the House of Commons as leader of the Métis nation then, when the Prime Minister made the apology. I was there because some 200 Métis went to these residential schools. There are 200 fortunate Métis, because they got something out of it. It was unfortunate that they had to go, but fortunate because they were covered by the apology and got some compensation. However, we weren't. We raised it, and I raised in on the floor. We've been raising it since, but nothing has been done by the federal government. It's like we don't matter.

I see these orange shirts that say "Every Child Matters". I'd like to go and say, "Except if you're Métis", but I can't do that to every orange shirt that I see out there.

No government, Conservative or Liberal, is doing anything about it, and the reason is that it was church-run. They weren't funding the church to run residential schools for Métis, so we were excluded from the TRC mandate.

I attended two or three of them as an invited guest to go and make this message that we're still there. We pleaded with the commission to put in a specific resolution that the Île-à-la-Crosse school be dealt with. They put in a weak resolution along the way that all the rest should be dealt with, but we weren't addressed and we're still not being addressed. I didn't read it for that purpose, because...what for?

Even this body that's being set up isn't for us; it's for others. I hope it goes ahead for the benefit of others, but it's hard for us to embrace it, because we're excluded. It's similar to when the Province of Quebec was left out in September of 1981 in Canada's Constitution. People who are excluded don't feel like participating to the greatest degree possible. We should continue working the way we have been.

The Métis nation has made substantial strides—don't get me wrong—particularly over the life of this past government. For example, in four federal budgets, we got over $3 billion. That was the first time in our history we were included in the federal budget. The government is trying to do other things.

One of the things the government also did, which you should keep your eye open for, was amend the Indian Act less than a year ago or so. That's thrown the doors wide open. All of a sudden, half of my nieces and nephews at home are applying for Indian status. My brothers and sister aren't, but because it was so wide open.... We have no connection to the Indian community, but it's been thrown wide open.

It's doing a disservice to the Métis nation and its citizens, and doing a disservice to the Indian community, to have all these people coming. It's the same across a lot of Canada. People who have mixed ancestry are coming forward, saying, “We're Métis now, because we found some great ancestor some way back in the generations”—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chartier. I would keep listening to you for a long time, but I have two more questions for you. Of course, if you want to round out your answers, you can send us your comments or the rest of your remarks in writing. We will be happy to read them.

At the end of the day, to the government you represent, may I say that the calls to action are not legitimate?

Next, would you still like to be included on the council or would you prefer not to be included because you were not consulted and you don't feel you're represented in the calls to action?

Finally, I have a third question for you, so I think you will have to send a written response, actually.

What do you recommend for the Red River Métis nation? You started to answer this question earlier.

[Clément Chartier]

That's a very big question. Essentially, I firmly believe that for those indigenous peoples who suffered at the residential school and are covered by the apology, the mandate and the calls for action, something more should be done. If that's the vehicle they choose to participate with, fine. In either this stage or in a strengthened one, that's up to them.

Again, we wouldn't want to say that we want to be on there, because then we kind of would be saying that we support what happened in the past, that everything is fine and dandy, that we don't need to deal with our issues and that our issues are no longer outstanding because they're being dealt with. I don't believe we really want to get engaged. As I was saying earlier, I think we want to continue working on a government-to-government basis, dealing directly with the federal government and not through some non-profit organization.

One of the things I vehemently oppose is Parliament passing legislation that's going to be entrenching falseness in legislation in terms of who represents whom. As I say, the federal government isn't keeping up with its reconciliation initiatives. One of its big initiatives was reconstituting indigenous nations, and we at the Manitoba Métis Federation, which was declared last weekend the national government of the Red River Métis—the Red River Métis meaning citizens of the historic Métis nation wherever they live, in Canada or outside of Canada—are the legitimate government of the Métis nation.

The Métis National Council is a membership organization made up four governing members. The courts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, just over the last two to three years, have said that they're not governments and are nothing more than voluntary membership organizations. The Métis can belong to them if they wish or don't wish. There is an initiative under these 35 reconciliation tables that Minister Bennett brought in and that she refused for the national body. There we could have kept some national principles that would have guided these, instead of creating these silos of self-government bodies by province, carving up our nation. It's like municipalities in Quebec becoming recognized governments and carving up the Québécois nation, so we're totally opposed to that. As for the MNC staying in there representing the Métis nation, I would call it an illegitimate act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Madam Gill.

We'll now go to Ms. Idlout for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's been a long time since I last saw you. I think it was in New York, when the United Nations met to address issues of the indigenous peoples. I think that was the first time we met.

When I became a member of Parliament, the members of the NDP appointed me to monitor or to work with Mark Miller and to become a member of this committee in terms of indigenous and northern affairs. I monitor the work that's being done by the ministers. I always have a huge task, and I'm learning along the way. I am just learning about the issues that Métis nations face.

It states here in Bill C-29, under paragraph 10(1)(c), that one member will be from the Métis National Council. I understand that you identify this as just a body, and not as part of the government. Now, when there is a member of the Métis nation, aren't you concerned that in terms of the reconciliation process, the Métis nation will not be represented in the reconciliation process?

[English]

[Clément Chartier]

Nakurmiik Thank you for that.

There are many things at play here. One is the commission itself, and one is who represents the legitimate interests of a people, in this case the Métis nation.

As I said earlier, as long as the MNC is referred to as what it is, a not-for-profit organization with a membership base, it can represent whoever it wants, wherever it wants, and we can't stop that. However, if it comes to the point.... I think there's still some potential through the section 35 rights reconciliation table that each of these three provincial bodies would be recognized under section 35 rights by province. We totally oppose that, because then it's just carving up our nation, destroying our nation and doing what English Canada couldn't do in 1870 and 1885.

English Canada today is trying the same thing through the back door by using Parliament to divide us. We won't stand for that, but in fact, we've already.... The national government of the Red River Métis already has thousands of registered citizens throughout the Prairies and outside of the Prairies, people who have moved, so we will continue on this path.

The federal government, approved by cabinet, has already signed the self-governing agreement, the only one of its kind. On the one hand, it can't say that it recognizes us and our government and that we represent our people wherever they may live, and then turn around and say it is going to recognize a non-profit pan-aboriginal organization, which the MNC has become, and thwart our future.

There's going to have to be some balancing. That's why I say the federal government is not keeping up with the progress of reconciliation that has happened since 2015.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I think there's something that needs to be added to this proposed bill. This bill should include studies of indigenous rights in order to support our indigenous rights. When our rights are violated, how can the bill be amended? If Bill C-29 were to be amended, what would you recommend to include?

[English]

[Clément Chartier]

Well, it depends on what the purpose of the bill is. I'm not clear yet on what the purpose is. In my mind, I see the purpose as being the implementation of the calls to action. That's the primary focus, at least. However, I know there are what some people call “weasel words”. There are some very broad words elsewhere that say it's to deal with everything, but what is that “everything”? What does that mean?

If it's going to deal with more than just the calls to action, perhaps it should address the issues you raised. For the Métis nation, there are so many issues we need raised, aside from the residential schools issue. There's still the dispossession of our lands and resources through the Dominion Lands Act and the scrip system that came about—in other words, the allocation of lands on an individual basis—to destroy our nation. It was done in such a shabby way and benefited white speculators.

In fact, in the 2003 Blais case, the Supreme Court of Canada, without being asked, referred to the scrip speculation and devaluation as “a sorry chapter in our nation's history”. Even they know it. Everybody knows we got screwed, yet we're excluded from specific land claim processes. We're not engaged in the processes set up by the federal government.

We decided to take action in northwest Saskatchewan in 2019, but the federal government is ganging up on us with the Métis nation of Alberta and the Métis nation of Saskatchewan, saying that as individuals, we're aggrieved. We have no right to be in court. Only these provincial bodies can be in court on section 35 rights.

The federal government is fighting us on a lot of issues, but they should be opening the door. I have written to former prime ministers Paul Martin and Harper to try to set up some kind of royal commission to deal with the land rights issues of the Métis and to give us money to take it to court and let the courts decide. Nothing's happening on that. When it comes to the Métis, we're not even afterthoughts. We're just brought along.

We have benefited; don't take me wrong. We were part of the legislation I referred to—health legislation, languages legislation, child and family services. We were part of the codevelopment of it. That's coming from, I think, the work that was taking place in the TRC. We benefited from it. We didn't say, “No, we're not going to benefit”, but it wasn't aimed at us. We had to be brought along, because they wanted the three aboriginal peoples contained in Canada's Constitution. We have benefited, to some degree.

Again, our big issues are not addressed. We're saying we don't want this non-profit body or organization to usurp the role of our legitimate governments in resolving our issues, which are critical to us.