Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're at the end of the five minutes.

I want to respect Madame Gill's and Madame Idlout's time.

Madame Gill, go ahead for your two and a half minutes, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to wrap up the discussion about how consultation could have changed the current situation, so I'll ask the same question I asked Mr. McLeod and Mr. Hare.

It's your turn to respond, Mr. Fiddler, and then you, Mr. Kavanaugh.

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler]

Thank you for your question and for the opportunity to speak to this very important issue.

I don't have time to be travelling to Ottawa for rallies or for committee hearings. I was in Kingfisher Lake on Monday, where an 11-year-old girl took her life. I'm dealing with a house fire in Deer Lake, where three lives were lost this past week. I'm dealing with a suicide crisis, a mental health crisis and a drug epidemic. Those are my priorities as the grand chief of NAN.

This is an added headache for me to try to deal with. I hope you'll listen to us, and I hope you read the materials. This bill cannot proceed. We can talk about possible amendments, but I don't know where that would lead us.

I talked about this being our relationship right here. My late father was a witness to the adhesion of Treaty No. 9 in Big Trout Lake. That's what he talked to me about. That's our relationship between my nation and the Crown that you represent. That's the relationship we want to maintain. However, if you want to recognize another group in our region, you'd better talk to us first, and we need to come to an agreement on how that will happen.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Chief Kavanaugh, what could consultation have changed?

You have one minute. Thank you.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

I didn't hear the last part of the question.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

It's the same question.

You said several times that you would have liked to be consulted at the beginning, not after the fact. What changes could have been made had you been consulted before the bill was introduced?

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

I'm not quite sure how I would answer that question, but I just want to say that if they're considering establishing a self-government agreement with the Métis and MNO.... We have a process we call the [Inaudible—Editor]—that's self-government on our own territory. We had discussions that were not terminated but suspended over 20 years ago. If those had not been suspended, we would be enjoying the benefits of self-government in our territory, but now the government is expediting the process to give another group self-government. The discussions that I'm referring to were during the time of Bob Nault.

Why now? Why are you going to provide a self-government agreement to another group beside us? I don't understand that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're going to have to move to our final round of questions, with Ms. Idlout.

The floor is yours, for two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

First, I want to apologize because I think you will walk out of here angry or frustrated since what we are dealing with is very hard. We are members of Parliament, and we have to deal with what's put in front of us. It's been many years since this has been put on the table. You may think we are not hearing you, but we are hearing you. What you stated will have an impact on the outcome.

The last question I want to pose to Alvin is this. We, as indigenous people, need to stand with solidarity. We have been colonialized by Canada, and we have been put into communities. In that regard, we have to stand together—Inuit, first nations and Métis. How would you perceive moving forward with solidarity?

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler]

We have solidarity. We've always been supportive of the legitimate claims, whether it's the Inuit or the Métis. What we have problems with—and we've been very clear in our letters, in our rallies, and in our appearance here today—is the illegitimate claims made by groups that purport to have communities in our region. It's spelled out in my letter. If there was another group of people in our region, we would have seen them. We would have seen their fire. We would have seen their camps. We would have seen their tracks, but they're not there, and yet they claim to have new historic communities. I don't even understand what that means. How can something be new and historic at the same time? Maybe that makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to us, and that's what we have problems with.

In terms of solidarity, for sure, absolutely.... I will come to your region any time. If you have a problem, an issue with anyone, I'll be there. I say that to other groups in the country, the Métis, whether it's in B.C. or on the east coast. We've done it. We've shown our support. When our brothers and sisters in the Atlantic were fighting with the racists who were trying to harm them while they were exercising their right to harvest fish, we talked to that leadership. We showed our solidarity with them, and we will do that any time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We are out of time now. We do have another panel that we need to hear from. I want to thank all four of you for being here and sharing your thoughts. It is an interesting and challenging discussion that we're having. I do appreciate your insights. Thank you for making time to be here with us today and for sharing your very important insights.

With that, colleagues, we're going to suspend to bring in our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Colleagues, welcome back for our second panel.

Joining us today online we have Grand Chief Catherine Merrick, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Welcome, Chief Merrick.

In the room, we have Mr. Jason Batise, executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council.

We'll get right into the opening statements. You'll have five minutes. I'll give you a 30-second warning with the yellow card and a “time's up” with the red card. Please don't stop mid-sentence, but finish your thought. We have lots of questions and discussion to get through and it's a bit of a rigid process. Please bear with us as we get through it.

I always like to start with our online witnesses, while we have them properly connected.

Grand Chief Merrick, when you're ready, the floor is yours for your five-minute opening statement.

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Thank you so much.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for the opportunity to speak to you on the subject matter of Bill C-53.

In my presentation today, I will discuss the impact of Bill C-53 on first nations' individual and collective rights. Through my remarks, I wish to convey the tremendous concern that the first nations in Manitoba have about the federal government's disregard for the inherent and treaty rights of first nations. Given the time restraints, I will refer you to my written brief for additional concerns about the bill's adherence to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Prior to European contact, first nations existed on the lands now known as Canada since time immemorial with our own unique laws and rights derived from the Creator. First nations in Manitoba have since exercised their own sovereignty alongside the Crown's assumed sovereignty through negotiated treaties and in respect of our sovereign nationhood.

Métis people, many of whom are our relatives, arose after contact with the Europeans. Unlike first nations, they have not existed on these lands since time immemorial with their own laws and nationhood. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged the distinction between first nations and Métis section 35 rights, further details of which are also provided in my written brief.

In proposing Bill C-53, your government is supporting Métis colonization and continuing a long history of ignoring first nations' rights. Bill C-53 is simply another method by which the Canadian government continues the colonization project against first nations.

Any claim that Bill C-53 will not impact first nations' rights is incorrect in two respects.

First is the overly broad characterization of Métis rights set out in precursor agreements that will be recognized by Bill C-53, which reference a historic Métis nation homeland, which includes all the land that is now Manitoba. This has the potential to unjustly recognize Métis as rights holders in first nations' treaty and traditional territories, where they have no connection or rights.

All first nations in Manitoba have entered into treaties with the Crown, which are the numbered treaties, or pre-Confederation treaties, entered into with the Dakota nations. A key component of the numbered treaties was a solemn commitment to set aside reserve lands for the exclusive use and benefit of first nations, and the right to harvest on treaty territories.

To this day, the Crown's treaty obligation to set aside reserve lands for first nations in Manitoba remains unfulfilled. First nations continue to have difficulty or are prohibited from exercising their full treaty harvesting rights. Bill C-53 would impede the ability of first nations to have their treaty obligations fulfilled.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfillment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Excuse me, Grand Chief Merrick. We lost the sound quality for a second there. We need to give it a second and see if it will stabilize for the interpreters. I've paused the clock, and we're just going to see if we can check to make sure we can hear.

The interpreters have your written statement. They will be able to finish this part, but it's going to be very challenging. They may not be able to interpret the discussion, and that becomes an issue for us.

I'll let you continue, with a minute and a half left on the clock for your opening statement, and then we'll see where the conversation goes.

Please continue.

[Grand Chief Catherine Merrick]

Okay.

Even before treaties are made with the Métis, they are standing in the way of first nations treaty fulfilment. This is evidenced by the action brought against Canada in 2021 by the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee on behalf of the treaty land entitlement first nations regarding the significant delays caused by Canada's decision to consult with the Métis before adding land to first nations reserves. Crown land selections, including Wuskwi Sipihk First Nation's Crown land parcels, have been held up by the Métis claim of land use. If treaties are made with the Métis, there will be further conflict.

Second, Bill C-53 may impact first nations' rights through the attempt to legislate the recognition of treaties that have not yet been entered into with Métis collectives. Several first nations in Manitoba have traditional territories that span into what is now Ontario and Saskatchewan—two provinces directly contemplated by Bill C-53. Provincial boundaries have been established in an arbitrary manner that does not consider first nations' sovereignty and land rights, which long predate the creation of Canada and its provinces.

First nations have received no indication from Canada that their voices will be heard in the development process of proposed Métis treaties to ensure that they have not infringed on first nations' rights. Lack of future first nations consultation is likely, given that there will be no consultation of first nations in Manitoba in relation to the Red River Métis treaty. As I speak, this has not happened to this day. There was never any consultation with any of the PTOs in the province of Manitoba.

First nations in Manitoba have been waiting for more than a century to have their treaties respected, honoured and implemented by Canada. As our treaty partner, Canada should be focused on fulfilling its outstanding promises rather than entering into other treaties without our knowledge and consent. Until our sacred treaties are fully honoured, no other group should trust that Canada will honour any new treaties.

For these reasons, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs strongly opposes Bill C-53. We ask you, our treaty partner, to ensure that Bill C-53 is not passed.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much for your opening comments.

We'll jump right now to Mr. Batise for his opening statement.

[Jason Batise, Executive Director, Wabun Tribal Council]

Good afternoon, committee. Thank you for accepting my application to speak today.

My name is Jason Batise. I'm the executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council in Timmins. I represent six first nations in northeastern Ontario.

I'm here today because Canada hasn't consulted us about Bill C-53 and has told us it is none of our business. The impacts to our land and way of life make it our business. Legitimate Métis groups should have their rights protected, but this is not what this bill does. The bill opens the door for a wave of illegitimate claims to alleged Métis rights across Ontario.

The focus of the Wabun Tribal Council and our communities is on protecting our people and lands, which we have occupied since time immemorial. One key way Wabun communities have been doing that is through economic development and reconciliatory action with industry. We are probably subject to the most intensive mining exploration activity in the country. We currently have 10 mines operating within our traditional lands, with three new mines now in development. We also deal with over 80 mineral development exploration permits on a daily basis.

In Wabun territory, we've created a model that works for both first nations and industry, providing benefits for our communities and for all Ontarians. Bill C-53 would severely disrupt our relationship with industry by allowing MNO to create illegitimate communities with section 35 rights on our territory—illegitimate groups that are already demanding that industry pay them for impacts to our land.

Aboriginal rights do not exist in the abstract. They are tied to the land. Canada should not be creating a treaty process for entities that don't have legitimate entitlement. The claim that there are Powley-compliant communities in our territory is ludicrous. MNO keeps repeating the mantra that it has Powley-compliant, independent registry processes. That's false. It can't comply with Powley, because those alleged historic communities never existed. Bill C-53 would recognize the alleged Métis communities in our territory as section 35 rights holders, but we know they aren't. We know this because it's our land. We've been here for thousands of years.

We also know this because we did the research. We hired leading experts to examine the claims of the group in our territory. It shows very clearly that the claims of the MNO communities in the Wabun territory are simply false. We've forwarded it to the committee, but you can also find it on our website. We have nothing to hide. The Red River Métis have called these MNO communities fraudulent, fabricated and not part of the Métis nation, so it's not just us saying so. It's the Métis nation of Manitoba and the Red River people. The Métis National Council itself is starting an expert panel process to investigate the legitimacy of the MNO claims.

We as first nations know everything about our lands. It is not credible that we never noticed a whole other group of distinct indigenous people living where we live. We cannot understand why Canada is dismissing first nations' concerns. Canada refuses to talk to us meaningfully or to disclose any information about the legal basis for the bill.

We also have concerns about the way the bill is drafted. If you look at clause 8 and the schedule of the bill, there is no definition, apparent restriction or clarity on the “Métis collectivity” being recognized in Ontario, other than that MNO gets to decide. This is not like giving first nations control over membership, which we don't have. It's like giving the AFN or the Chiefs of Ontario the power to unilaterally create new first nations. Canada brushes off our concerns with “Don't worry about it. This is just about internal matters.”

The bill creates a treaty process for MNO. This is about land. MNO's representatives have looked me right in the eye and told me the land next to my home community of Matachewan First Nation is theirs. They challenged us on our treaty land entitlement claim and asked us to allow them to use our land because it is theirs. MNO has already been making aggressive demands in our territory, attempting to delay projects we already consented to in order to extract outrageous demands for benefits agreements from industry. Margaret Froh is on record saying there can be no electricity transmission development in Ontario without equity participation for MNO.

The long-term consequences of this bill will be catastrophic for our communities and for industry. Once MNO has a legal platform, there will be a massive increase in the financial burden on industry in terms of the cost of doing consultation with an illegitimate group, the cost of accommodating MNO's demands and the likelihood of extensive litigation by MNO. Canada is sowing the seeds of generations of unnecessary conflict by refusing to consult with us.

Canada has not thought through the consequences of this. If our treaty partner thinks it can unilaterally change the promises it made to us in Treaty No. 9 and give away rights to an illegitimate group, then you have another think coming. You don't understand what you're doing, and we implore you to pause this legislation and talk to us about it.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for those opening statements.

Colleagues, we'll get right into our one round of questions now. That's all we'll be able to get through, six minutes for each member.

The challenge we're having with Grand Chief Merrick's audio.... We'll have to see. I'll keep my eye on the interpreters. If we can't hear, I would ask the grand chief to perhaps keep track, or we can send out the questions and get a written statement back from those questions, if we're unable to engage, but we can at least pose the questions to her. We'll see how it goes.

Up first, I have Mr. Vidal, splitting his time with Mr. Schmale.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank both of our witnesses in this panel for appearing today. We do appreciate your time and your passion for the challenge we face.

Mr. Batise, I talked to Grand Chief Fiddler about this in the last hour, but I want to pursue it with you as well. The Abitibi inland historic Métis community's territory claim is by far MNO's largest, covering a vast stretch of land approximately the size of New Brunswick. You provided us this map showing the overlap of the different territories, and there are several first nations within that territory. “As a result of the 2017 recognition” by the Province of Ontario, “First Nations in the region of the MNO's claim have experienced damaging consequences”. That's the claim in the documentation you provided to us.

My question for you is quite simple. Can you give some very specific examples of the three items that you talk about: interference by the MNO in the exercise of their treaty and inherent rights, particularly during treaty land entitlement; the curtailment of harvesting rights; and the diminishing of benefits to which they're entitled under the impact and benefits agreement? Can you briefly give me a couple of specific examples that would hit those things that were in your brief?

[Jason Batise]

Like the grand chief of Manitoba, we were made to consult with the Métis Nation of Ontario on our treaty land entitlement that was right beside our reservation, land-adjacent. It couldn't be more simple. Four more square miles adjacent to a nation in the remote part of northeast Ontario.... It took us two years, almost three, to get through a consultation, a useless consultation exercise with an illegitimate group that had no presence in that area, so they did hold up 120-year-old treaty promise that was left out of our treaty entitlement.

On the mining side, just two weeks ago, in talking with the executives from Newmont, the Timmins local Métis Nation of Ontario representatives told Newmont that they would not approve their tailings dam lift, which was an environmental disaster waiting to happen, unless they got an agreement, so not only did they interfere in the agreement that we already have with Newmont, but they're also endangering the environment in favour of economic benefit. If you want to learn more about that, I invite you to talk to the folks and the executives at Newmont mining.

Finally, as more and more of these members, these illegitimate members, show up in our territory, there are fewer animals. They are everywhere, and they hunt without regard to our treaty rights. I know folks. I live beside them. I know these MNO folks who carry the cards. They do it, and they do it all the time. They do it with impunity, and it's not right.

That was promised to us in our Treaty No. 9. That game, those animals, they belong to the folks, my ancestors, and nobody else. They're not legitimate. We've done the research.

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

Thank you.

I did a very good job of splitting my time, but my colleague is telling me to keep going, so I'll keep going.

Mr. Batise, you made a very bold statement. This is something that's been debated at this table over the last couple of weeks. This is about land, you said. We've had many discussions with many witnesses about the fact that there's nothing in the legislation that would specifically reference land. You made a very bold statement, and I want you to just take a moment to expand on why. You obviously believe very strongly that this is about land. How does this legislation link to that outcome in the longer term?

[Jason Batise]

Ignoring the myriad of examples I could give you on what's going on today with the interference in mining companies and with the interference in our treaty rights to harvest, the bill itself, the title of the bill, says it's “to give effect to treaties with those governments”. What does that mean? I know what “treaty” means. We have Treaty No. 9. That means land. Don't tell me it doesn't. I'm not buying it. It's right in the title and mentioned at least a dozen times throughout the bill—treaty, treaty, treaty. You're talking to a treaty Indian. That's my land.

There is no possible way that this is just about internal governance matters, about just the administration. If folks want to meet and they're like-minded and they meet somewhere, fine, have at it, but this is about the places of the traditional folks of Treaty No. 9. The Abitibi homeland of the Métis does not exist. It never did. It's not a historic community. I'm sorry.

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

Thank you.

I'm just going to quickly jump in here and build on what Mr. Vidal was talking about.

To your point, would the potential treaty process, were it to take place should this legislation pass...? Right now, according to our reading, it could be approved by an order in council. Would an amendment to have it voted on in Parliament after the fact be more acceptable to you so that the process or the final decision is clear?

[Jason Batise]

I suppose if there's more veracity and investigation in their process, that's better.

Do I accept that Canada is going to do right by the Treaty No. 9 nations, by Matachewan? I don't. I think the bill needs to die. I think it needs to go away. If there are ways that we can work together to amend it through consultation, then let's get at it. We haven't been consulted to this point, as many of my colleagues have said.

Do I think it should just go to a small committee in a back room, which is how most of it has been done? We've had to file freedom of information requests just to learn what's going on, and we've been denied. We've spent half a million dollars through our little tribal council trying to get at why this bill is, and nobody wants to tell us. Nobody wants to tell us a thing. The government is protecting the information under cabinet privilege. Imagine that, treaty partner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's interesting.