Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I apologize for the delayed start, but we had votes, and votes always take priority here. We're now at a point where we can get started.

I'd like to, first of all, call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 82 of the Standing Committee of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting will be in a hybrid format. There are no screenshots, photos or recordings allowed now that we are in session.

For today, we are going to have interpretation in three languages: French, English and Inuktitut.

Speaking of Inuktitut, I wanted to just raise to everybody's attention that today is a special day. It is International Inuit Day, so this is a very important day for our committee to celebrate. I just wanted to get that on the record. I hope everyone gets a chance to reflect on the relationship we have with the Inuit peoples and how we can continue moving forward in society.

For those participating in person, welcome. We have one witness online for the first panel. I would just ask people to speak slowly and clearly, so that our interpreters can do their jobs.

Just before we get into opening statements, I also want to remind members that we need to start giving some thought to amendments for this legislation. The note I have is simply that as we approach the deadline for submitting amendments, I'd like to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk. The deadline we established is November 29. That will come up quickly, so start giving thought to those amendments and subamendments. If you wish to propose amendments, please send your written instructions to the legislative counsel, Alexandra Schorah, and she will ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

With that, as the official business is done, we'll get right into welcoming witnesses.

With our first panel, we have Al Benoit, chief of staff, senior adviser, Manitoba Métis Federation; and William Goodon, minister of housing, Manitoba Métis Federation. Online, we have Dr. Ken Coates, chair, indigenous governance program, from Yukon University.

We are going to have five-minute opening statements from the two organizations. I'll give you a yellow card when there are 30 seconds left and a red card when your time is up. Don't stop mid-sentence, but wrap it up as much as you can, so that we can get into our rounds of questions. We want to give everybody a chance.

With the delay today, we are going to unfortunately have to do a bit of an abbreviated round, but I'll try to manage the time expectations for everyone here.

Everybody has gone through their sound checks.

Since we have Dr. Coates online, I think we'll start with him, just because the technology is there, and we have a visual on him. I'd like to give him his five minutes, because we never know when the technology might give up on us.

We will then come to our witnesses in the room, and then we'll get into our first round of questions.

Whenever you're ready, Dr. Coates, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening statement.

[Dr. Ken Coates, Chair, Indigenous Governance Program, Yukon University, As an Individual]

I'm really honoured to be here, to have a chance to speak to the committee on an issue that I think is vital. It addresses one of the most important and long-standing gaps in indigenous rights and recognition in Canada.

I have some observations to offer and to put it in context, I guess.

Like most major indigenous policies, Bill C-53 is seeking to address a historical injustice. At some point we will get to a situation in which we're no longer having to look backward to fix the problems of Confederation, and we will look more creatively to the future.

At the time of Confederation, the Government of Canada recognized that it had to deal with the Métis. They weren't particularly happy about that. They did so, both as a distinct people and as part of the rapidly-changing society in western Canada.

At the time, the Métis were very highly regarded for their business acumen, their connections to both the newcomer and indigenous worlds, and their military prowess.

The federal government of Canada dealt with the Métis in the creation of the province of Manitoba, which was a process that did not end well for the Métis, unfortunately. They made scrip arrangements that recognized their rights to the land, but that was not managed very well. They confronted the Métis during the 1885 resistance period.

After the defeat of the Métis in 1885, the Government of Canada effectively refused to deal with the Métis as a political entity or a collective. This approach held for generations, despite frequent representations by the Métis for greater recognition by the government.

The population was dispersed for a variety of economic and social reasons. It moved to northern and western districts quite comprehensively.

Due to the lack of legal status and recognized rights as indigenous people, the Métis avoided some of the interventions that were so strongly and negatively affecting first nations people, although some Métis children were still required to attend residential schools, and they had to deal with widespread economic and social discrimination. They also lived without formal recognition of their existence as a political community.

It is to the credit of the Métis politicians and leaders that they continued their activism in subsequent years, which resulted eventually in their inclusion in the political debates over indigenous rights in the 1960s and 1970s. It also resulted in their inclusion in the patriated Canadian Constitution in 1982.

Since that time, the Métis have been working very hard, through a variety of legal and political means, to get the attention of Métis governments where section 35 of the Constitution did not result in immediate resolutions.

Court decisions gradually expanded the recognition of Métis rights. Bill C-53 is a long-overdue recognition of the existence of Métis as a rights-bearing political group and, therefore, a key element in the national and cultural fabric of Canada.

I offer a couple of other quick observations.

This recognition is a matter of global significance. We follow, around the world, the battle for the rights of indigenous people and for attention to their particular needs. The unique struggle of cultures that emerged out of the contact experience has largely been ignored. This is an important step in that regard.

The second point is that Bill C-53 capitalizes on the collective national learning from over 50 years of negotiating modern treaties and restructuring constitutionally protected partnerships. We got started in this process by negotiating very complicated—and what they thought were final—comprehensive agreements, but after more than 30 to 40 years, those agreements have been signed but not fully implemented.

That process was remarkable in that time and very appropriate. This approach is quite different. I appreciate the effort of the government and the Métis nations to do this.

It starts with a very simple and important element. We're seeing official and high-profile recognition of the Métis nations as political communities. Rather than trying to resolve all the things in a package, as happened with the modern treaties in the Canadian north, they have been working on a more foundational level. It's establishing recognition as a starting point and then allowing Métis nations to work on self-government agreements that will deal much more directly and specifically with the practical details of governance.

Bill C-53 establishes a foundation upon which the country can redefine and rebuild its relationships with the Métis.

It is a bold and, I think, valuable innovation. It will be followed by the Métis nations developing and expanding their Métis services and programs. There's actually a lot of work to be done. One of the most important pieces will be defining their relationships with individual Métis groups and with first nations more generally.

This is the start of a process. It is not the end. It establishes a foundation and recognition. There will be challenges, to be sure, on everything from boundaries to citizenship, membership and things of that sort. At least it's a vital step in the right direction, adding to and encouraging the development of Métis constitutions and Métis national governments. This process is exciting, dynamic and very important.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That was excellent—right down to the seconds. Thank you very much for that.

I have to say that we're having a bit of an issue. Your camera is zooming in and out. It's giving us a bit of a 3-D effect here. It's all good. The sound quality is good, and that's what's important.

We're going to now go to our representatives from the Manitoba Métis Federation, who are in the room. I'm not sure who will be offering your comments.

Okay, Mr. Goodon, it's over to you. When you're ready, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[William Goodon, Minister of Housing, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Thank you. We'll both be making some presentations here.

Good afternoon, Chair, committee members and observers.

As you said, Mr. Chair, we are also proud to observe International Inuit Day. Of course, we know that tomorrow is National Indigenous Veterans Day. Our nation served in many wars and conflicts with the country of Canada.

We are pleased to be able to appear before this committee on behalf of the Manitoba Métis Federation, the national government of the Red River Métis.

As you know, we are in the final stages of finishing the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty. We expect it to be signed by our president and the minister in the immediate future and then presented to Parliament for final ratification.

With regard to identity theft, when signing and legislating a treaty, Canada needs to ask itself who it is treating with. This was asked by the Chiefs of Ontario, and we feel the need to echo it. Who does MNO represent? It is not the historic Métis nation.

This question is unignorable. Canadians cannot take a “recognize first, ask later” approach. It needs to be answered before they can be given the recognition that the Métis of the prairies have fought centuries for.

We went to war with Canada in 1870 and 1885, and then enlisted en masse to fight for Canada in both world wars, mere decades later. Likewise, we not only built alliances with first nations in the prairies but battled against them as well. All of this is to say that we are known by Canada and our first nations neighbours in the prairies as the Red River Métis.

The individuals who call themselves Métis in Ontario are not known in Ontario. Just last week, the Chiefs of Ontario shared with this committee that their elders have no stories of Métis ever existing in their territories. This is no longer about an individual academic or author stealing an identity. This is about the attempted theft of the identity of a nation.

The people who call themselves Métis in Ontario wrap themselves in the flag of the Red River Métis. That's our flag that was flown at Seven Oaks, at Red River. To put it simply, if those claiming to be Métis in Ontario are us, then why is it called the Red River jig or the Red River cart? Why is our beadwork of prairie flowers? Why would our victories and heroes and national symbols come from the prairies?

Our nation goes back centuries. We assure the committee that these “historic Métis communities” in most of Ontario have no connection to us.

Thank you. I will now turn the microphone over to Mr. Al Benoit.

[Al Benoit, Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Manitoba Métis Federation]

Good evening, everyone.

On October 26, witnesses to this committee stated, “We deserve to advance in reconciliation, just like all other indigenous people”, and “consistent with how other indigenous self-government legislation has been considered.” They also said, “Bill C-53 is only about matters that are internal to our Métis self-government”. However, the text of Bill C-53 is inconsistent with these statements.

Firstly, there are no provisions limiting future treaties to self-government or internal matters. Secondly, Bill C-53 allows future treaties to circumvent parliamentary procedure, which is inconsistent with the treaty ratification legislation and processes applying to all other indigenous peoples. Contrary to Bill C-53, the right and proper process for modern treaties has been, since 1975, for the treaties to be negotiated, initialled and ratified by the indigenous people, signed by the parties, and then presented to Parliament. This allows Parliament to know what is in a treaty before it passes legislation and gets royal assent.

A recent example that came before this committee is the Self-Government Treaty Recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation Act, which received royal assent on June 22 of this past summer. The Whitecap Dakota Nation completed their treaty before legislation was introduced, not afterwards. Similarly, our soon-to-be-completed Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty will come before Parliament, together with its ratification legislation. You will have our treaty in your hand.

Bill C-53 is an unprecedented transfer of constitutional authority from Parliament to the executive. Parliament will have no further oversight or approval role in the treaty ratification. In a reversal of practice, Bill C-53 would create a troubling precedent for entering into future treaties.

Clause 5, clause 6 and clause 7 are the heart of the problem. They empower the Governor in Council to give a treaty force and effect, to acquire constitutional protection, and to give it priority over all other federal law, if it meets certain unknown requirements. There is no indication in the legislation as to what requirements, standards or criteria have to be met for the treaty to be approved. What are the contents of the treaty? What could they be? What will they be?

There is also no indication of whether subject matter must be limited to internal self-government alone. Also, one question—for which there is no indication as to what an answer might be—is this: Why is Parliament being blocked from reviewing a treaty while approving its ratification legislation? As my father would say, “That is backasswards.”

If the committee feels it is right, we will suggest recommendations during our responses to questions.

In summary, with Bill C-53, Parliament is being asked to blindly approve future, unknown, yet to be written yet constitutionally protected treaties without Parliament ever seeing them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your opening comments.

We're going to get right into the first round of questions.

First up, I have Mr. Vidal for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses, Mr. Coates, Mr. Goodon and Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Goodon, both you and the MMF in general have been very vocal in speaking out against the MNO's inclusion in this bill. It's been very public. Even today, you talked about the identity theft that comes with this. In my observations, I have not noticed the same concerns being raised about Saskatchewan and Alberta and their part in this.

Am I correct in my observation that you don't have the same concerns as Saskatchewan and Alberta?

[William Goodon]

Absolutely. When we look at who the historic Métis nation are and where our homeland is.... It is primarily in western Canada. We go a bit into the United States, a bit into the Northwest Territories and a bit into Ontario. However, the people we're talking about who live in Saskatchewan and Alberta are us. They're related to us. They're our cousins.

Those “historic communities” in Ontario are not us. They're not related to us. They have no connection to us. Therefore, I would say you're absolutely correct.

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

Thank you.

I don't want to cut you off and make it short, but my time is very limited, so I'm going to be very quick with a few more questions.

For absolute clarity, is it your position that the MNS and the MNA should have the right to be recognized as Métis governments in their respective provinces?

That's a simple yes or no, I suppose.

[William Goodon]

There are some nuances in there that may not be quite the issues raised by Mr. Benoit, on treaties that aren't written yet, or in having a blank cheque—

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

I believe that's a separate issue, but if you agreed with the process and it came back to Parliament, you wouldn't have an issue with Alberta and Saskatchewan. Is that a safe assumption?

[William Goodon]

I don't have a problem saying that those people in Alberta and Saskatchewan are actual, historic Métis nation citizens, but there are issues that reflect how the colonial structure has divided us. I think there are still some issues that we need to work out, and Canada is not helping us work them out.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

To Mr. Benoit's point.... I'm not going to ask you about recommendations right now, because my time is so limited and I want to ask Mr. Coates some questions, but be aware that you can provide those recommendations to us in writing as a submission, and we would be happy to take those if we don't get to them in the discussions. Thanks for that.

Mr. Coates, thank you for being here today as well. I know you're a man with great knowledge and expertise. I think you've heard the concerns that were expressed in prior meetings, and you heard today about this very unique process that was put before us in Bill C-53. Unless you correct me, I believe it is a fact that this has never been the process used in any prior indigenous self-government legislation. The fact is that it could be approved by cabinet or by an order in council, rather than having to come back to Parliament. There's a lot at stake in this.

I'm curious to hear your comments about that, or about whether you have any concerns with that process, which has been included and identified by so many people so far.

[Dr. Ken Coates]

I have concerns in the sense that I'm very much in favour of transparency in all of these kinds of arrangements, and bringing something back to Parliament for ratification and clarification, I think, is always a good thing.

On the other hand, I like the idea of a process that actually starts with this general recognition and allows the formal arrangements to evolve over time. We spent an enormous amount of time on the earlier modern treaties in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. It took 20-plus years to negotiate—30 years—and most of the agreements have not been implemented.

I think it's a different kind of approach that's very practical and would proceed stepwise, but if you don't address these questions that have been asked by the Métis nation of Manitoba and others, this is going to be an ongoing sore point, which we should address ahead of time.

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

Thank you for that.

Let me just back the train up a bit and ask you a hypothetical question. It's quite simple, actually. If the Government of Canada had asked you, say, back in 2017 what an appropriate direction would be to take on a bill like Bill C-53 that would lessen the concerns for other rights holders, what would you have offered as a response?

I think you probably get my context. We've heard some really significant concerns about the lack of consultation, even when first nation leaders have asked to be included in the discussions.

If you were to have given some advice, say, a few years ago, what would that advice have been?

[Dr. Ken Coates]

My experience over time suggests that, in fact, you don't consult with one group about another group's rights. Individual groups—take the Red River Métis as an example, or the Saskatchewan Métis—can deal with their own rights and deal with them directly.

I would say that unless you deal with some of these issues of identity that have been identified ahead of time.... They have caused enormous difficulties in other jurisdictions. When people flag these things as issues to be addressed, we're called on to deal with them.

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

My response to that would be that so much of the success of these kinds of things is built around good relationships, good conversations and being inclusive with people. Would you agree that there could probably have been more done to include others in the consultations and conversations, which would have eased some of this?

[Dr. Ken Coates]

Obviously, if you have people who are raising concerns about it, there might have been other processes, but I think you also have to respect the fact that the individual Métis nations want to deal with their rights by themselves. They don't want other people giving advice and having an influence. When I talk to folks in Saskatchewan, where most of my work has been, in fact, they're quite forward about the fact that they've had long conversations with first nations and they're quite comfortable with the arrangements they have there.

I think those are issues for the Métis nations to work out with first nations, and they've actually done so reasonably well.

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

Thank you.

Can I just comment, Chair? That's been my experience in Saskatchewan as well, Mr. Coates. We're not hearing the same concerns in Saskatchewan, so I think you and I align on what we're hearing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're now going to go over to my colleague Mr. Carr for his six minutes.

We also wanted to welcome Ms. Atwin back to our committee. It's great to see you.

Mr. Carr, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by welcoming our witnesses. Mr. Coates is somebody I've actually had the pleasure of working with in other capacities. I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge on these particular issues. I'm glad to see that he's here. From my hometown, of course, I welcome Mr. Benoit and Mr. Goodon.

Mr. Benoit, I would also like to say you referenced your father saying that things might be “backasswards”. As my father would have said, perhaps it's the wrong em-pha-sis on the proper syl-lab-le, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment.

I want to start by asking a question. Perhaps both Mr. Benoit and Mr. Goodon can take a shot at it. We've heard a lot of concern around land, specifically, and concerns that if this legislation, as is, were to pass, in some way, shape or form this would encroach upon certain territories where rights are currently granted to both first nations and, I would imagine, from your perspective, the Manitoba Métis.

Can you comment, please, on your understanding or perception of the legislation vis-à-vis land? If my assumption is correct that you do have some concerns there, are there particular amendments within the frame of this legislation that you think would get us in a direction that the MMF would be more amenable to on that specific question?

[William Goodon]

I'm going to jump in here first and allow Mr. Benoit to clean up whatever I mess up here. I wanted to make a note. Dr. Coates talked about Métis nations, plural, and I want to make it clear that there is only one historic Métis Nation. There are Métis governance structures within what is now provincial jurisdiction, but our homeland is ours, and it is not made up of these boxes that were made by the colonial government.

One thing that may not have been brought to the attention here is what the prime purpose is, as stated in the constitution of the Métis Nation of Ontario. First and foremost, their prime purpose is land. When they say that this self-government legislation, the treaties, aren't going to be about land, that they're only going to be about internal structures, then there's an inconsistency when you look at what they say they want to do, what they're telling their members that they're going to do, and what they're telling the public and the chiefs and the committee that they're going to do. Land is an issue, for sure.

For us, in the homeland, what the land issues are for the so-called Métis in Ontario is less of an issue. I was listening and watching the first nations leadership last week, and there is a big concern. We have been supporting them and supporting their calls to be able to ask questions. For us, land is absolutely vital. It's important. We have our own process. We went to court. We won at the Supreme Court in MMF v. Canada. We're working on a process that's distinct and separate from this kind of work here, but yes, that is a big issue.

[Al Benoit]

I think what's important is that the legislation is silent. It doesn't reference what's inside a future treaty, and it doesn't make specific reference to the contents of any previous agreements. There are the 2023 agreements from February of this year. They're self-government agreements. It's mentioned in the preamble that they contemplate a treaty, but they don't use that to say what the treaties are going to be about. There is nothing that says this legislation is about land, but it doesn't say it's really about citizenship. It doesn't say it's about governance structure. It doesn't say it's about elections. It's completely silent in the legislation, because it doesn't refer to a specific table of contents for the treaty, or a table of contents of a previous agreement.

These possible future treaties are blank sheets of paper. What Bill C-53 does is give the executive and these three groups unrestricted pens with which they can write new constitutional instruments or treaties—but unrestricted.

If we were doing an analogy, I think the recommendations would be to put some lines on the page—and this is the way it's always been—so we know what is being coloured in. Is land part of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. I'm just going to pause for a second. We have a minute left. We have bell lights. We're going to check and see what's going on here.

For our witnesses, and those in the audience, when we have bells, we have to pause. To continue through bells, we need unanimous consent.

I want to make sure we're not seeing an electrical glitch.

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

It's a quorum call.