Evidence of meeting #82 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-53.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Madden, do you have something to add in response to my question?
6:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I think that some of the fears are the outcome of 150-plus years of ignoring the Métis.
I've spent my life in courtrooms where provincial governments have been taking these positions. Everyone has this Nimbyism—not in my backyard. We even had to go to court in Manitoba to prove that there were Métis there with rights.
It's a challenging discussion, because you've had 150 years of ignoring the Métis and not dealing with them. The answer, based on UNDRIP, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the urging of the court, is not to do nothing and sit on our hands for another 40 years. It's to begin the discussion.
As Autumn says, Bill C-53 is a stepping stone to begin those discussions. If consultations are needed at the treaty stage... There is an important distinction between when consultation is required and when someone else's rights are potentially impacted, but I think some of the commentary that's come out from this about just the absolute denial of Métis existence or cognitive dissonance that the Powley case, which is from Ontario, didn't go to the Supreme Court of Canada, is just unhelpful.
We do need to begin that discussion, but I don't think it can come from a place of denial.
I think that, hopefully, through this process, one good thing in the way forward is that those discussions will at least happen. It can't be the rug being pulled out from under the Métis one more time because of concerns.
What absolutely needs to happen is reconciliation with all indigenous peoples. No one gets to go absolutely first, holding back others.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you.
I think I have 25 seconds left, but I'll generously let you have them, Mr. Chair.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We're going to jump now to Ms. Idlout.
Ms. Idlout, you have six minutes.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for their statements. You have made very important statements. I will have one question for all of you.
Jason, if you could be the first to respond, then Autumn and then Angie.
Since Bill C-53 was drafted, it saddens me to see how it has divided indigenous peoples. It seems like it is bringing about a lot of resentment and division. This bothers me. It saddens me.
I want to encourage you to lean towards solidarity as indigenous peoples—as first nations, Métis nations and Inuit.
How can we stand together in solidarity and support each other?
Jason, you are a lawyer. If you could respond to my question, I would really appreciate it.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I think that's a great question, because that's where reconciliation ultimately needs to get to.
I will just say that I think we need to have understanding and context. I completely understand why the first nations in some places stand up and say that this is unfair, because look at what Canada's colonization project was in relation to them. It was to impose the Indian Act, control their lives from cradle to grave, and implement a status system that is racist and inconsistent with UNDRIP. They've lived through 150-plus years of that and are digging themselves out from under it.
Métis have lived through almost the looking glass of complete denial. “If we ignore you long enough then hopefully you'll go away or get absorbed into the body politic.” Now we're finally coming in to finding our place in Confederation, and we don't have the baggage and the racist legislation of the past holding us back. I get it. I understand. You can see why people.... That division is not of our own making, though, as indigenous peoples. It's because of the history of Canada that this situation has been created.
We need leadership, and for those discussions to happen.... Maybe it needs to be a bumpy ride initially, but at some point in time the discussion has to happen. I have family who are members of first nations. Those relationships run deep. When we go out hunting together, or when we go out on the land together, we're a family, but sometimes these classifications in politics divide and conquer our communities.
I think we need to keep sight of the fact that we have very different stories here, and we have to respect each other's journeys to self-determination and self-government, but one can't trump the other, and we have to sometimes look at it and have that broader discussion.
Bill C-53 is going to have to do that. Treaties will be coming at some point in time with the Métis. Those discussions need to happen with first nations. I hope that they are already, and that they will.
6:10 p.m.
President, Provincial Métis Youth Council, Minister of Youth, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan
I think I'm next.
If I may be so frank, I think the only thing missing for the committee members is popcorn, as you facilitate this structure where you're inviting indigenous nations from all over Canada to come and fight each other in this setting.
One of the things I'm thinking about for Bill C-53 is that we're doing a favour for you, essentially, by lumping these three individually distinct governments together, because the fact is that the Métis Nation of Ontario will never back down, and they'll never stop fighting for their self-government recognition and treaty. What Bill C-53 is doing is simply stating the fact that we will begin the process of negotiating.
When it comes to our first nations brothers and sisters—and I mean that quite literally, especially with the demographics here in Saskatchewan—I encourage you to invite President Glen McCallum to speak, because he's been a champion in regard to those relationships with first nations and Métis, especially with the community that he's from. We are quite literally brothers and sisters, or cousins, and family.
When I listen to our Métis elder, who has been invited here to speak, I hear her speak about the love that her parents gave her. That was the strength that allowed her to survive and to be resilient through the harsh realities of residential school. That's what I think is needed. We need to bring back the love to our communities and create space for, yes, open dialogue. Yes, we need to be having these discussions, but we need that love and we need to be ensuring that our elders and our youth are in this space. We need to remember that when we are inviting these people here, we need to do that with love.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay. Thank you.
Unfortunately, we're out of time on this one. We do have time for a tight round. We'll go to Mr. Schmale for five minutes. I'm going to make sure, though, that we move to the next person at the end of the five minutes, and so on.
Mr. Schmale, the floor is yours.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have one question, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Vidal.
Mr. Madden, we had just left off on the conversation about the Yukon communities and the fact that no subsequent vote was required in the legislature or in Parliament. What was the opposition like in those circumstances?
6:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Is that in relation to the passage of that bill?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Yes, that's without a vote for a treaty that included land.
6:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I'm not aware that there was any, and my understanding is that the modern-day treaties are consistent with the umbrella final agreement that was negotiated, but those treaties are brought in by order in council. My understanding is that it wasn't contentious, which is why we've replicated the model here: It's because if it's good for the goose, it should be good for the gander, and if this wasn't a controversial technique previously and it still exists there—I know that all of the Yukon treaties have not been negotiated—that was the model used.
It met the needs of the Métis.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I'm sorry. I do have to be quick, because Gary's going to nudge me out if I don't.
To be clear, leading up to that process where the conversations happened beforehand, we're not exactly certain that there was an opposition to what you're talking about.
6:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
No. That legislation's been in place since 1994, and I don't understand it as being contentious or problematic in how it's structured.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay. I think you can see where we're coming from on this, to play back and forth.
I'm going to turn it over to Gary. Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you, Jamie.
Mr. Madden, I'm going to carry on with you for a minute. You talked about there being absolutely no obligation to consult. I get we've heard that in our discussions with the three levels of government that are looking to be included in this legislation.
Based on the agreements that were signed in February 2023, then, where does that duty to consult, that obligation to consult, come in?
6:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I think consultation obligations may be triggered in the negotiation of the treaties, if those treaties have the potential to adversely affect another indigenous group's rights.
The February 2023 agreements, though, when you read them, are about the internal processes of these governments. Why on earth would we be consulted about a band council adopting a new constitution for themselves? That would be absurd. It would be offensive.
These processes are internal. When, I would gather, the legs drop, i.e., when there may be land-related negotiations in the future or harvesting-related negotiations in—
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Sir, I'm going to interrupt because I'm really limited on time. We've been told this isn't about land. You just indicated that it is about land. You said when those—
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
When we talk about treaty, we often connect that with land. That's the understanding that we've been.... If that becomes.... You said maybe there would be a consultation process, so you're not even committing to the fact that there would be a consultation process at any point in this, potentially.
6:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
No, that's not what I said at all. There absolutely would be consultations if the treaties have the potential to affect other people's rights and interests. That's very clear. Canada's been clear that in those future negotiations, consultations need to be had.
Up to where we are right now and in the legislative process, those consultations haven't been triggered, by virtue of their not affecting or impacting other people's rights.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
That's fair enough, but you did say “may be”. I'm sorry. That's what triggered me on that.
My final quick question would be this. In that context, do you not think it would still have been done? I think we're seeing that in the conversation about Saskatchewan—I'm afraid I'm not going to get to President Laing-LaRose here, because I'm going to run out of time—but do you not think that doing some consultation and building some relationships would have been helpful to remove some of the contention that's in this?
6:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Absolutely. Consultation and discussions are always good. I want to highlight, though, that having a discussion where.... Where I've said that consultations are needed is when people are absolutely denying the historical facts of where Métis communities are. I don't think Métis people need to consult with others to ask, “Can we exist?” That's deeply offensive.
I think consultations need to be had when other people's rights are potentially impacted, but when you look at what the agreements do, some of the stuff you hear is hyperbole or potential things that may happen in the future that these agreements don't commit to. These agreements don't commit to lands. They don't commit to harvesting rights. They don't commit to any of those sorts of things.
If those discussions are held in the future, Canada has been very clear that consultations will take place, and the Métis have been clear that consultations will take place, but that's not at this stage or where we're at now.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm going to have to jump in. We're at the end of that question period.
We'll now go over to Mr. Battiste for his five minutes.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
My question is for Mr. Madden.
You spoke about Bill C-53 not creating any section 35 rights, as written. Can you expand on that a bit?