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

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 81 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We're going to be in a hybrid format today, with members online. All of our first panel guests are present in the room with us, so I'd like to welcome everyone.

Everybody has the ability to use the language of their choice. We do have official-languages interpretation, as well as Inuktitut today. For those witnesses who are here, our team will turn your microphones on and off. You just need to choose the language of interpretation on the console.

We're going to jump right into our first panel.

From Chiefs of Ontario, we have Glen Hare, Ontario regional chief, and Scott McLeod, chief of Nipissing First Nation. From Grand Council Treaty No. 3, we have Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh. From Nishnawbe Aski Nation, we have Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler. Welcome to all of you.

Mr. Hare, do you want to go first? You have five minutes.

Before you start, we have to be somewhat rigid with our time, so we can get through all the material. I'm going to show a yellow card when there are 30 seconds left in the allotted time, and a red card when time is up. Don't stop mid-sentence, but we'll try to wind up the conversation when you get the red card, and we'll move to the next person.

[Grand Chief Glen Hare, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario]

If I speed up, I'm not singing. I'm trying to deal with—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We also want to say don't go too fast, because we have our hard-working interpreters, who need to be able to keep up, so go at a nice steady pace and we'll cover lots of material today.

When you are ready, the clock will start, and you'll have five minutes.

[Grand Chief Glen Hare]

Good day, everybody.

Thank you for the introduction. I welcome being here with you all today. I'm Ontario regional chief Glen Hare, from Manitoulin Island.

Chiefs of Ontario is a first nations political and advocacy organization that represents 133 first nations in the Ontario region. I am proud to hold the office of regional chief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-53 here today. As I am sure you all know, there is a high level of interest from first nations to participate in the study of this bill. That is because of the massive impact we believe Bill C-53 will have on first nations rights. Those rights were given to us by the Creator, and they are very sacred to us.

Our primary concern is that the Métis Nation of Ontario is one of the groups included in this proposed legislation that will be recognized as having section 35 rights. The MNO has been asserting that they have historic Métis communities that completely overlap with our ancestral and treaty territories. Our leadership and elders assert that those communities never existed, or else they would remember them. The MNO is claiming a history on our lands that never happened.

If passed, this legislation will set a dangerous precedent. The MNO will be emboldened to keep asserting land rights and jurisdiction in our territories, in our consultations and in our agreements.

First nations continue to be left completely in the dark about the factual and legal basis for the recognition of MNO communities. We were not consulted at all throughout this entire process about the assignment of aboriginal rights to a group making assertions in our ancestral and treaty territories. This is going to impact our rights, so it's very much our business.

We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn. We are urging parliamentarians to take our concerns seriously and stop this process before further irreparable damage is done.

We came to Ottawa twice for peaceful demonstrations opposing the passing of Bill C-53. That was in both June and September of this year. We were joined by hundreds of family and community members, first nations youth, elders, knowledge-keepers, drummers, dancers, grassroots people, technicians and first nation leadership from Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, as well as the interim national chief. All were there to oppose the passing of this bill. People travelled hours to attend these demonstrations. Our rights are of the utmost importance to our people.

Second, I know my time is limited, but I think it's really important for this committee to know that it's not only Ontario first nations that are opposing the passing of this bill. We have absolutely taken a unified stance in Ontario on this issue. You can see that here today. You have the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski and Anishinabe nations, Grand Council Treaty No. 3, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, independent and unaffiliated first nations, and the Wabun and Matawa tribal councils. The Ontario region is very large. We do not always agree on everything, but this is something we've all come together on because it is so important. As I said, it's not just us. First nations across the country are worried about the impacts of this bill.

In July, at the Assembly of First Nations annual general assembly in Halifax, the chiefs in assembly unanimously passed a resolution entitled “Protect First Nations Rights and Interests from Unfounded Métis Rights Assertions”. First nations in every province and territory agree that this bill cannot pass. We have also received support from the Manitoba Métis Federation, which shares our concerns with the MNO's claims, stating, “Bill C-53 Rewards Indigenous Identity Theft”.

False claims to indigenous identity are not just some phenomenon happening in academia and the arts. This is it right here, in action, and this legislation, this House and this government will enable these false claims.

I see that the card has gone up already. I would like to close.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You still have 30 seconds left.

[Grand Chief Glen Hare]

I'll use my 30 seconds just to share and echo that it really hurts me, as a leader in this province, to sit at the table with the federal government to try to move things in the time that I have been given here today. We all have five minutes on what we potentially could be losing for a lifetime.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for those opening comments.

I know that five minutes is a pretty rigid and short amount of time to cover so much material, but the point is to allow us to get into a good conversation, and that's what we hope to do.

Who would like to go next?

We have Chief McLeod.

When you're ready, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Chief Scott McLeod, Nipissing First Nation, Chiefs of Ontario]

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin and provided the following text:]

Aanin kina wiya. Zoongaabwi ndizhnikaaz. Nbiising ndoonjibaa. Shagi ndoodem.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Hello, everyone. Zoongabwi is my name. Nipissing First Nation is where I’m from. I am Crane clan.

[English]

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Chief Scott McLeod of Nipissing First Nation.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak about Bill C-53.

I'm proud to stand here today with our regional chief, grand chiefs and leadership in the name of protecting first nations' inherent and treaty-protected rights. I want to echo the regional chief's comments that first nations in the Ontario region support the legitimate claims of indigenous peoples but note that the recognition of unfounded claims undermines legitimate and inherent rights holders.

I'm here on behalf of the first nations of the Ontario region to voice our concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario being recognized as section 35 rights holders in Bill C-53. We are calling for Bill C-53 to be withdrawn until there is proper due diligence on the part of Canada to verify whom the Métis Nation of Ontario represents.

The communities represented by the MNO did not exist historically. We have been saying this for decades. The communities did not exist historically. They do not meet the legal criteria set out in Powley and, therefore, cannot have section 35 rights.

Section 35 is to protect the rights of indigenous groups that existed on the land prior to the establishment of Canada. Section 35 is about protecting the rights of pre-existing nations on the land that they occupied. We now have academic research that demonstrates that the so-called MNO historic communities did not exist.

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin, a treaty-level organization representing the 21 first nations of the Robinson Huron Treaty, signed the treaty in 1850 and recently released a report titled “An Exploratory Study of Métis Nation of Ontario’s 'Historic Métis Communities' in Robinson-Huron Treaty Territory”. The report examined the MNO's own documentation in their verified Métis family lines report. These are public to check if the so-called communities met the criteria set out with Powley.

The MNO is reimagining family lines and manipulating census records to create a history that never happened in our territories.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that, in order for a Métis community to qualify as having section 35 rights, it must have their own distinct language, culture, customs and family descendants living in a given geographic area for multiple generations prior to the effective European control.

The findings in this report demonstrate that the MNO Métis root ancestors and their descendants are not recorded in the Métis community prior to effective control. The MNO so-called Métis root ancestors are not primarily identified as Métis in the historical records, and many of the Métis root ancestors are never identified as Métis in the historical record.

I would like to take a moment to examine the MNO's McLeod-Riel verified Métis line. It provides us with an example of an important regional Anishinabe family that the MNO has transformed into a Métis family for Killarney.

We will focus on one individual, Gregor McGregor, a Métis root ancestor descendant. Please bear with me. I will be speaking about the census records, as this is what the MNO uses to form the foundation of its so-called historic communities. Gregor was listed as Scotch and living with his parents and younger sister in the 1881 census for Killarney. The four of them are the only ones on the census pages for Killarney not listed as Indian.

Ten years later, in 1891, Gregor was listed with his wife and their two children as French Canadian in Killarney. The family appears to be living exclusively among the Anishinabe families again. In 1901, Gregor, Véronique, their four children and his parents living next door are listed at the Whitefish reservation on Birch Island, today known as Whitefish River First Nation, as a French breed under “Colour”, and Chippewa Canadian under “Racial or Tribal Origins”. They are all recorded as speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with the five of the six remaining households listed on the census page.

Ten years later, again, in 1911, Gregor, Véronique and their now eight children were listed at the Whitefish River Indian reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with 27 other individuals on the same page of the census. Ten years later, in 1921, Gregor, Véronique and five of their children were once again listed on the Whitefish River reserve as Ojibwa and speaking Anishinaabemowin, along with everybody else on the census page.

What all of this tells us is that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of McLeod-Riel Métis root ancestors were all integral members of the regional Anishinabe communities and there was no distinct Métis community there. According to public documentation produced in February 2023, Gregor McGregor and Véronique's descendants continued to be a significant presence in the Whitefish River First Nation, and those with the McGregor last name represent over 16% of the 730 adult citizens we all know today as the McGregors from Whitefish.

This is whom the MNO is claiming to represent, and they have people signing up to be members today who will benefit from section 35 rights based on being a descendant of Gregor McGregor.

This is only a glimpse into the findings of this report. There are many more examples just like this one. I have included this report as part of my submission for today's appearance. I sincerely hope you will take the time to review the information and findings while this committee studies Bill C-53. This is why first nations in Ontario and across Canada, the Manitoba Métis Federation and even the governing members of the Métis National Council all have serious concerns about the MNO's claims that they represent people who come from the historic Métis communities. No MNO should be recognized in Bill C-53.

Also, I will add to that Jean Teillet's report, which represents the firm—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. Could you wrap up this part of your opening statement, so we can get to the other chiefs?

[Chief Scott McLeod]

Okay. I didn't see the yellow card.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

It happened a couple of minutes ago.

[Chief Scott McLeod]

Anyway, in her report, she says that indigenous identity fraud causes harm. This is uncontested. She also goes on to say, “Self-declared organizations are appearing almost daily. Their existence does not, by itself, provide proof of community or Indigenous identity.”

This is what we are saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I know it's a tight time frame. You covered a lot there.

Thank you so much for that.

Grand Chief Kavanaugh, if you're ready to go, we'll turn the floor over to you for your five-minute opening statement. I will start the clock when you're ready to start talking.

The floor is yours.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh, Grand Council Treaty No. 3]

[Witness spoke in Anishinaabemowin]

[English]

Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. My name is Francis Kavanaugh. I am from Naotkamegwanning First Nation, and I am the ogichidaa or grand chief of Grand Council Treaty No. 3.

I am honoured to be appearing before you today to raise concerns of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3 regarding Bill C-53.

Grand Council Treaty No. 3 is the traditional government of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3. This includes 26 first nations in northwestern Ontario and two first nations in southeastern Manitoba. We are a nation with a common language, Anishinaabemowin. We have a shared creation story of the larger group of Anishinabe peoples living on Turtle Island, which is thousands of years old, and a migration story of how we came to be a nation at the height of land where the waters flow north into the Arctic watershed. This may be as long ago as 1200 A.D.

There are many concerning aspects of this bill that could be discussed. My focus today is on the concerns that relate directly to Treaty No. 3.

From our perspective, this bill must not pass. Seen in the context of previous agreements between Canada and the Métis Nation of Ontario, this bill provides a legislative pathway to reopening Treaty No. 3 without our involvement, let alone our consent. This bill is premised on a rewriting of history within our homeland, Manito Aki. It creates new section 35 rights within the 55,000 square miles of Treaty No. 3, absent of any historical or factual underpinning for such bestowal.

On misunderstandings of Treaty No. 3, we have several struggles with the Métis Nation of Ontario and their claims to represent some of the descendants of Treaty No. 3. These are based on narratives around an 1875 adhesion to Treaty No. 3. The misrepresentation stems from a racially problematic word used to describe mixed-blood Anishinabe. I’m talking here about the term “half-breed”. To be clear, Treaty No. 3 is only between two peoples, the British and the Anishinabe, in the presence of the Creator.

Euro-Canadians, believing in racial superiority, described our mixed Anishinabe kin as “half-breeds” only because they had the promise of white blood. British policy allowed these mixed Anishinabe to work in fur trade posts for salaries.

This is fact one: There were individuals with actual Métis cultural connection who intermarried with the Anishinabe well after 1873, and 1873 is a key date for the Powley case, developed by the Supreme Court of Canada. We have several modern-day citizens of the Anishinabe nation with a diversity of racial backgrounds. We are an inclusive nation and have been so because we have our own citizenship laws.

This is fact two: The Indian Act has caused many problems, including the issue we have today. So-called “half-breeds” in 1873 were affirmed as Anishinabe in 1875 because of Treaty No. 3 and the Anishinabe’s citizenship customs and law. This 1875 adhesion to treaty is sometimes called the “half-breed adhesion”.

Then the Indian Act produced non-status Indians in the 20th century because of Euro-Canadian views of caste and race and policies of enfranchisement. These colonial policies have separated our families for far too long, alienating our kin who do not have status under racist and exclusionary Indian Act provisions.

The Grand Council Treaty No. 3 would like to have the same powers of citizenship that we have exercised since time immemorial. Contrast our long fight for self-determination with that of the so-called Métis in Ontario. In the 1990s, we start seeing our Anishinabe but non-status kin—kin who lost status because of enfranchisement and discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that have repeatedly been found unconstitutional—turning to Métis groups for hunting and fishing rights and belonging.

If we had the means, we may have been capable of helping them with their fight for justice to keep their status and membership in our first nations, but we did not have the means in the 1990s. Our poverty forced us to be on the sidelines as these individuals fought for status and resigned themselves to using their great-grandparents' half-breed identity to belong to the Métis groups.

These so-called half-breeds were not part of a distinct Métis community; they were part of the Anishinabe nation, as affirmed during treaty negotiations in the 1873 adhesion to Treaty No. 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

If you have a brief conclusion, please go to that, and then we'll hear from Grand Chief Fiddler.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

There is no historic evidence of ever having Métis communities in our territory. Even the half-breed adhesion does not mention Métis in the adhesion.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thanks very much. Meegwetch.

Grand Chief Fiddler, when you're ready, you'll have the floor as well for five minutes.

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Oji-Cree]

[English]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be back here on the unceded, unsurrendered lands of the Algonquin nation.

My name's Alvin Fiddler, and I'm the grand chief for Nishnawbe Aski Nation, one of the PTOs in what is now called Ontario. It's one of the largest PTOs in the country, covering almost two-thirds of the province of Ontario. There are three distinct languages in NAN: Cree in the eastern side, Oji-Cree to the west, and Ojibwa in the central south area.

I stand before you today to reiterate our position, which we set out in a letter we sent to Minister Anandasangaree, the new CIRNAC minister, on October 10. The message in that letter was clear. It was to ask Canada to withdraw Bill C-53 and to say it is reckless for Canada to rush through this legislation without meaningfully engaging with first nations, ensuring there is a proper basis for what Canada is doing and getting a thorough understanding of the consequences.

Canada's current attempt to force through Bill C-53 will do nothing but damage first nations' rights for generations to come, and I am here to tell you it is likely to cause damage to our relationship with you. The Métis Nation of Ontario has repeatedly made public statements and demands to our communities that it intends to impose itself on first nation lands and displace our rights. Given that reality, which Canada is choosing to ignore, what choice will we have? Giving aboriginal and treaty rights to groups on our territories that do not have a legitimate entitlement to rights diminishes those rights.

What we're asking for is transparency and meaningful consultation. We are also asking that you do proper due diligence on MNO's claims.

I want to be very clear: We're not here to oppose the legitimate rights of the Métis people as set out by rigorous legal test, for example in the Powley case. We support their aspirations in seeking to correct the historical injustices they faced and the processes established to get there. We have no issues with that.

What we are opposed to, however, are the six new illegitimate Métis communities in Ontario as represented by the MNO. The recognition of these communities is baseless, non-factual and not supported by genealogical evidence. One of the six, the Abitibi Inland Historic Métis Community, is deemed to be situated in Treaty No. 9 territory. This community does not exist. The neighbouring communities and elders have never seen such a community. I would invite you as members of this committee and ministers to visit this community—you will not find it. It's a fictional community simply designed to assert rights that are non-existent. I wanted to bring an elder here with me today to testify to this, but because of the short notice, he wasn't able to be here.

There are a number of other things we have issues with relating to this bill: one, the territorial rights assertion of Métis rights; two, future treaties with the Métis have been discussed by members of this government; three, undefined references to concepts such as mobility rights and activities incidental to harvesting.

In the last 15 seconds I have, I want to say that I hope you read all this material that we've given to you, and I hope you recognize how colonial this is, that you're sitting up there contemplating giving recognition to another group that is not legitimate in our view—at least the settlements they're claiming in our territory are not. We do have treaties—I brought the treaty documents with me—that were signed by my ancestors and your ancestors. That's the relationship we want to maintain.

Meegwetch. Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much, all of you, for your opening statements.

Again, I apologize that things are rushed, but doing that allows us to get into the conversation now that is also important to these hearings. I think we should be able to get through a full first round and perhaps a short second round with the time we have. Our next panel has two people, so we will have a bit of time to play there.

We'll jump right into it. First up, for six minutes of questioning, is Mr. Vidal.

When you're ready, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for being here today. You all have very significant responsibilities and roles and it's our honour to have you here representing the people you represent and to have this conversation, so thank you.

Specifically, Ogichidaa Kavanaugh, I want to send greetings to you from Eric Melillo. He was hoping to be here today to engage with you on this but isn't able to be here. I want you to know that I send greetings on his behalf.

I'm going to start with Ogichidaa Kavanaugh. In a May 4th press release from your office, there were quite a number of elements about the lack of consultation, about the fact that Chief Perrault, in fact, from Couchiching had literally written to the minister back last October and didn't even get a response. You referred to that. You went on to say, “We are being kept completely in the dark, as Canada reopens our Treaty. This conduct is dishonourable and completely unacceptable.” I don't want to read the whole thing, just because of the time.

To confirm, you specifically asked the minister to engage on this and you didn't even get a response. Is that correct? I want to make sure that's true.

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

That's correct.

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

Thank you. I wanted to make sure I wasn't assuming things.

According to the legislative summary that's been provided by our analysts, under the framework for this bill, there's going to be “no additional legislation...needed to authorize the Governor in Council to give effect to future treaties or self-government agreements with listed Métis governments.” That is the interpretation of the legislation.

Is the fact that future treaties or self-government agreements will require only the approval of the Governor in Council, which is the Prime Minister and cabinet, and not Parliament, a cause for concern for you, based on what seems to be a broken trust at this point?

[Grand Chief Francis Kavanaugh]

We've asked why we haven't been involved in these discussions. Back in 2017, when former premier Wynne signed an agreement with the Métis, our chiefs directed me to write a letter to Canada requesting that we be involved in these discussions, but they never occurred.

Over the last several years, we've often said that we should be at these tables when they're talking about acquiring rights in our territory. There's never been a response. That's what really bothers us—the lack of engaging us in these discussions.

Recently, when Marc Miller was still the minister, he was asked a question regarding Métis. He walked away from the person who asked that question. He said, “I don't want to be talking about this matter because they're not here to discuss.” But where are we in the discussions?

That's where we're coming from—

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

Thank you. I don't want to cut you off, but my time runs out very quickly here and I want to get to one more question.

I'm going to go to Grand Chief Fiddler, but I want Grand Chief Hare and Chief McLeod to be ready to answer this question as well.

In the information you've provided, which you asked us to read—and I have read the information—there's talk specifically about the Abitibi Inland Historic Métis Community. Grand Chief Fiddler referred to that, and that territory overlaps with several nations in Treaty No. 9. In the material provided, you talk about the experience of damaging consequences, including the interference in treaty rights, the curtailment of harvesting rights and the diminishment of benefits that are coming to you under impact and benefits agreements.

Starting with Grand Chief Fiddler, can you speak a bit more specifically to some of the ways in which you feel your rights have been impacted and how that has specifically already been happening?

[Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler]

Yes. I'll try to be as brief as I can.

We can talk about this issue alone all day. That's why we're here. It's important for us to defend our interests and our rights, not just for the treaty, but our inherent rights given to us by our Creator.

There are some, I think, new realities now that we find ourselves in, because of this process. It's now in some of the agreements—for example, resource development agreements—that our communities are now being asked to consult with Métis groups in the region. Meanwhile, there is no one there. To me, that shows us how absurd this is—we're being asked to consult with people who aren't there.