Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 26th, 2023

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I'll try to phrase my question as neutrally as possible. As I understand it, a person would no longer be considered Métis if they refused to belong to one of these structures. Their rights as a Métis person would be extinguished. Is that the case?

[Michelle LeClair]

I'll give you an example. We have, in Canada, a number of non-status Indians who could maybe get status on a reserve in Ontario, and they choose not to. They don't like the system and the process, but that's their choice. It comes back to talking about rights and individual rights when we're talking about UNDRIP and the right to decide who you are and what organization you belong to.

I want to go back to something else we were talking about before, and I understand that and I think that's a question that we have to internalize and talk about and think about. How do we want our members to come on in, feel comfortable, and be good, providing citizens and all of that?

I think there was a question that I think Michael had got to, which I'm going to answer really quickly. That was—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Michelle, I'm sorry; I don't want to go back to Michael's.... He'll have a chance to come forward, but we're out of time for Madame Gill's question.

Don't lose track of that thought. You may be able to weave it in here.

Ms. Idlout is patiently waiting for her round, and I want to make sure that she gets her time.

Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for President Sandmaier.

Considering the Métis settlements in Alberta, would MNA be willing to work with the Métis settlements to ensure that their concerns are addressed in a co-operative manner?

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Yes, over the period of time when we were doing consultation on our constitution, we did send numerous letters to the Metis Settlements General Council. We have Métis Nation of Alberta citizens who live on those settlements, so we very much wanted them to be involved in the process of the consultation on our constitution.

More recently, probably about a week ago, I and Karen Collins, my new secretary of Métis settlement and first nation relations, met last week with the president and vice-president of Metis Settlements General Council. We're very pleased with how that meeting went and we look forward to building a stronger relationship with the settlements.

Yes, we want to be able to have our citizens within the settlements be a part of what we are doing here.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Going back to my first question, my first question was answered.

Now I am going to ask you again: If Bill C-53 failed to be passed, how would it affect your nations?

[Mitchell Case, Regional Councillor, Region 4, Métis Nation of Ontario]

Mr. Chair, may I...?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I want to pose that question to Andrea, because she didn't have a chance to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're at the end of the two and a half minutes, Andrea, but I'll give you a chance to respond, and then we'll go to the next question.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Thank you.

Failing to pass Bill C-53 will hurt all Métis people and the advancement of all indigenous people in Canada. Yes, it will affect all of us.

That legislation is there to protect us, to protect our rights. Governments come and go, and we need that legislation to protect what we have built.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Mr. Schmale for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you again to the witnesses.

I'll go a little faster this time, because I only have five minutes and I have so much to talk about.

Congratulations, President Sandmaier, on your recent election. To former president Poitras, it was great working with you.

Maybe I'll start with you, if I could. What an exciting time to be president.

I want to bring your attention to some of the correspondence we received from the Métis in Fort McKay and also the Métis settlements of Alberta on their concerns about elevating the MNA over their groups when they have elected bodies to look after their people.

Maybe you could briefly explain or address some of the concerns. They wouldn't necessarily belong to the MNA, but they have fears that it would then be governing them or having responsibility over child welfare, etc.

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Again, Bill C-53 is about the Métis Nation of Alberta, and of Saskatchewan and Ontario. It's about the citizens who have chosen to be citizens of the Métis Nation of Alberta. We have citizens who live on those settlements. We have citizens who live in Fort McKay, Pincher Creek and Fort Vermilion. We have 61,000 citizens in Alberta. It's their choice on whether they want to be a part of the Métis Nation of Alberta, and it explicitly says that in the legislation.

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

You probably are aware that they are asking for amendments. Fort McKay and the Métis settlements, among others, want specific amendments to basically carve out, if you will, a section ensuring that they are in fact—as you said, they have that option—the representatives of the people who elected them.

Would you be open to that amendment, or do you have comments to address that?

[Andrea Sandmaier]

Again, I think that the legislation and our self-government agreements do specifically say that it's Métis citizens of Alberta, those who have chosen to become Métis citizens. If they are not Métis citizens and they have not chosen to be Métis citizens, then they're not included in that legislation.

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

Michelle, quickly.... I'm sorry; Vice-President LeClair—

[Michelle LeClair]

That's okay. You can call me Michelle.

I guess I would answer that in this way. If the legislation, as Andrea was talking about, affects only their members—remember, we talked about verifiable systems to get membership—there is nothing stopping, in my view, Fort McKay, as a community, to sit as a federal government.

We want a self-government agreement. We are seeing it time and again with first nations now in our country. They are either not part of a treaty or they don't want to live under the restrictions of the Indian Act. We've seen one of them from our province. I believe there are negotiations going on with another band from our province. They're not related people. They live in their own communities, their own settlements, and have done so for a long time.

There is nothing barring other section 35 rights holders from negotiating a self-government agreement, which they're all doing, outside of our provinces or inside of our provinces. For goodness' sake, just because one band—

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

Vice-President, I'm sorry, but I have 45 seconds, and I have one question that I really need to go to.

[Michelle LeClair]

Okay, 'bye.

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

I don't mean to cut you off. I apologize profusely.

In the definition of “treaty”, when we talk about a treaty as the next step, it's potentially not just about land. When we were looking up the definition of treaty, there is reference to modern treaties that are also called “comprehensive land claims agreements”. That is something the Ontario chiefs were raising in their concerns about this piece of legislation.

That's what we're trying to flesh out the details on—I've got five seconds. It's whether or not the treaty comes back to Parliament or how that works.

I'm sorry, but I'm out of time. Could you explain your stance on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll give one person a brief opportunity to respond.

[Margaret Froh]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The legislation does make reference to “treaty”, as do our self-government agreements, but for clarity, these are modern self-government treaties. The rights that are being recognized in the legislation are our inherent rights to self-determination, to self-government, and they will be collected in the form of the treaty. They don't deal with lands.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Carr, you're next. You have five minutes.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by recognizing all the folks behind our witnesses.

I don't know what we call this. In the House of Commons, we call it the gallery. I guess this is the equivalent. It's very nice to have folks here and participating in our democratic process. I think it also keeps us on our game a bit when we have more people in attendance, and that's a good thing.

Welcome, everybody. Thanks for being here.

There's been a lot of talk of history. I apologize, but I'm going to take a moment in this preamble.

I come from Manitoba. I represent a Winnipeg riding. We talk about history, and I was at the Manitoba Métis Federation's annual general assembly last week, where Premier Kinew announced that his historic government would be taking historic action, which I know many of you are aware of. That was to officially declare Louis Riel the first premier of Manitoba. It was a proud moment for me to be there amongst Manitoba Métis and other citizens from Winnipeg and Manitoba and across the country in celebration of that and in honour of that.

It was nice to hear mention of Seven Oaks. I was an administrator, a high school principal, in the Seven Oaks School Division in Winnipeg. You don't typically hear of Seven Oaks talked about outside of Winnipeg, but of course in the context of Métis history it's quite important.

I'm going to direct this question to Regional Councillor Case. I noted that he has not spoken yet. He had a moment where the mike came on and then the mike was turned off, so I'm going to let him chime in.

If the question is not appropriately directed to you, feel free, Councillor, to put it elsewhere. I wanted to make sure that I could find my chance to include you.

The question piggybacks a bit on some concerns that have been raised. I sometimes hear—and perhaps it's hyperbole or fearmongering—stories of organizations that claim to be Métis that aren't represented here and that are, for a fee, allowing folks to register and are giving them Métis cards. These individuals are then taking them to universities and to businesses so that they can check a box that says, “I have indigenous status”, to meet some type of criteria that have been set in place.

It would seem to me that, broadly speaking, this is a fraudulent activity in many instances, particularly given that once this legislation is passed, these will not be groups that are officially recognized in this framework.

Is there a role that the federal government can play in assisting Métis governments in Canada, alongside post-secondary institutions, businesses or others, to identify the proper rights holders and proper leadership of Métis governments and communities in order to make sure they aren't falling victim to an attempt at disguise to gain monetary benefit from something that isn't in fact correct?

Councillor, I would turn that over to you.

[Mitchell Case]

Thank you for that question.

Thanks to all of you for having us here.

I think the easiest way to support that is to pass Bill C-53. The governments that are represented here at this table have established registries that uphold the national definition of “Métis” that was established by the Métis nation through the Métis National Council and ratified by every single one of our governments. When I was a kid, that decision was made.

That definition was then upheld when my community was put on trial. We were put on trial. I grew up in Sault Ste. Marie when Canada and Ontario were using all the resources of their justice departments to tell us that we didn't exist. Quite frankly, we overcame that because we're pretty resilient, but also because the facts of history are on our side. They were not on Canada's side.

The facts of history and the law are on our side. Work with us to support our governments to continue to expand the capacity of our registries to do that work. Then we can provide that support to those institutions that want to stamp out that disgusting thing that is happening in those institutions with people claiming something that's not theirs.