Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 9th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 83rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

For those participating virtually, you have the choice of choosing the language that you'll be following—French, English or Inuktitut. In the room here, we'll turn mikes on and off. Those joining us online will need to mute and unmute themselves as needed. Now that we're in session, photos and screenshots are not allowed.

Before we head out at the end of today or tomorrow when people are travelling home for Remembrance Day, I once again want to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk. Our established deadline is November 29. If you wish to propose amendments, you can involve the legislative counsel, Alexandra Schorah, with your written instructions. She'll ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

We have two panels today. We have resources until 5:35 p.m., at which time we will have to end this. That should help us manage our time accordingly. We'll go through our first opening statements, rounds of questions, suspend briefly, bring in the second panel, go through it and then adjourn for the weekend.

In our first panel, we have Mr. Tony Belcourt. He is in person. We also have Solomon Sanderson, consultant, and Danette Starblanket, assistant professor with the University of Regina. They are both online.

Welcome to everybody. We'll get right into your opening statements.

Mr. Belcourt, before I turn to you for your five-minute opening statement, I will mention that I have a card system. When there are 30 seconds left on the clock, I'll show the yellow card. When time is up, I'll show the red card. Don't stop mid-sentence. Just wind up your thoughts so that we can move on to the next person and the next round of questions. The time goes by quickly. There's a lot of material to fit into our rounds, but we try to get as much out as we can.

Mr. Belcourt, when you're ready, please proceed.

[Tony Belcourt, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

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

Makwa ga ni ga nich nit si ka sin.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

I am The Bear That Leads.

[Witness spoke in Plains Cree and provided the following text:]

Manitou sakhaigan ochi niya kyate.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Spirit Lake is where I am from.

[English]

I'm Tony Belcourt. My spirit name is The Bear That Leads. It's a name that was given to me by former Ontario regional chief Charles Fox.

I'm from the Métis community of Lac Ste. Anne, Alberta. I have been involved as an indigenous advocate and leader for nearly 55 years: as a Métis leader in Alberta in the sixties, as president of the Native Council of Canada in the seventies and as founding president of the Métis Nation of Ontario from 1994 to 2008. I was a member of the board of governors of the Métis National Council for 15 years and a Métis nation ambassador to the United Nations and the OAS for 10 years.

I am carried by the pipe.

Maternal ancestors in my community are Cree and Sekanais women. They are the grandmothers who gave us our language and taught us our medicines, values, cultures and traditions. My paternal ancestors are French and Mohawk. In other communities of our homeland, they include the Scots and the English. In Métis communities in other parts of the Métis homeland, our maternal ancestors include the Saulteaux, Dene and Anishinabe.

The blood of our ancestors in much of our homelands is the same as that of our first nations cousins. In fact, the Cree in my area called us âpihtawikosisân, which means “Cree half-cousins”.

The progeny of our ancestors formed the origins of our communities long before so-called outside control. These are Métis ancestors, although we were not always called Métis. In my case, we were known as Otipemisiwak, or “the people who own themselves”. At Lac Ste. Anne, we spoke of ourselves as Nehiyawak, which simply means “the people” in Cree.

In St. Laurent, Manitoba, the people there referred to themselves as Li Michif. The Anishinabek referred to the Métis in their communities as Apti Nishinabek. Governments referred to us as “half-breeds”.

I have heard opposition to Bill C-53 by those who are saying there are no Métis communities in Ontario and they don't know of any.

I would like to point out that we have a history of relationships with Ontario first nations, which includes a protocol with the Chiefs of Ontario. The purpose of this protocol was to affirm the mutual respect, recognition and support of our respective rights, interests and aspirations; to facilitate government-to-government relationships; and to establish a political process to strengthen the relationship between Ontario first nations and the Métis nation within Ontario.

We also entered into a nation-to-nation relationship with the Anishinabek Nation. It was forged in a traditional way through a sacred ceremony and an assembly of the Anishinabek Nation at Kettle and Stony Point First Nation in 2005. We both brought our songs to the drum. We brought our pipes for ceremony. We had a feast and we danced.

During that time, the Anishinabek Nation and the Métis nation worked out a harvesting accord to recognize and respect each other as nations, and agreed to conduct all discussions on the basis of respect and equality. This accord recognized the shared traditional territory and the aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather in the shared territory where our people have kinship ties.

I have also heard that if Bill C-53 is passed, it will be a detriment to first nations economically. This is a refrain I heard 52 years ago, when I first met with George Manuel, who was then the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. It took some time for me to get a meeting with him, and when I did, he said his chiefs didn't want him to meet with me and the government was warning him not to meet with me. They were saying there was only a loaf of bread available, and if the Métis were recognized, “Well, George, half of that loaf of bread would have to be given to them.” I said, “George, Ottawa is not a loaf of bread. Ottawa is a bakery.”

I told George we had no interest in the funds that were set aside for him through Indian Affairs. There wasn't enough for him and there was nothing for us. I told him we needed to work together to get funds for housing, for health care and for economic development. We did just that.

I hope this committee will see through the arguments that have been brought forward to deny the recognition of Métis rights in Canada and pass Bill C-53, so our Métis' and first nations' governments can begin to rebuild that nation-to-nation relationship for the benefit of all indigenous people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much for your opening statement.

Ms. Starblanket, we'll go to you next.

So that our colleagues know, we've had a connection problem with Mr. Sanderson. He is working on trying to join. When he gets in.... He did his sound quality test yesterday, but we'll need to suspend for a brief moment to make sure today's quality is good. We are hoping he'll be in any moment now.

While we're waiting, Ms. Starblanket, I'll go to you for your five-minute opening statement.

[Professor Danette Starblanket, Assistant Professor, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I come from Star Blanket Cree Nation in southern Saskatchewan. I've served first nations organizations as a first nations public servant. I've worked at the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and, for the past several years, as a sessional instructor in indigenous studies and political science. More recently, I've worked as an assistant professor in public policy at the University of Regina.

I hold a Ph.D. in public policy from the Johnson Shoyama graduate school of public policy. I also hold a Master of Arts in indigenous studies through the First Nations University of Canada, in collaboration with the University of Regina, where I gathered data and conducted research on Treaty No. 4 in southern Saskatchewan in 2001. This included gathering the oral history of the elders and knowledge-keepers, along with other primary and secondary data. Prior to that, I completed a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Indian studies, where I researched the history of my first nation, including Chief Starblanket's alleged and misperceived involvement in the northwest uprising of 1885. Some of the research conducted for my B.A. (Honours) informed the graduate research for my Master of Arts degree.

I'm presenting evidence today related to the historical rights of the Métis peoples, based on my understanding and training, both informal and formal.

Métis people have aboriginal rights, which include the right to hunt, fish, trap and gather, the right to self-government and the right to the land. These are inherent rights based on Métis people belonging to the group of indigenous peoples. Métis people have asserted their rights throughout the colonial history of this country. In some cases, those rights were aligned with the rights of first nations people. For example, the Métis were questioning the Crown's right to occupancy pre-treaty. The involvement of Métis people at the time of treaty negotiations demonstrates their vested interest in the outcomes that would follow.

First nations and Métis people had very different relationships with one another historically than we do today in contemporary times. The impacts of colonization changed those relationships and damaged kinship ties in very negative ways. Those relationships were familial. We knew our blood ties to one another. Certain Métis people were recognized as having rights as road allowance people during the early reserve years. Many first nations in Saskatchewan had road allowance people camped just outside their reserve boundaries. In many cases, these were our Métis relatives.

In my historical research, I found that first nations people were very concerned about the Métis' situation and pressed the Crown to deal with them in a just and fair manner. First nations people, at the time of treaty, were insistent that the government deal with the Métis in the same ways they were treating with the first nations. Métis people were interpreters, advisers, company men, witnesses and servants of the Crown during treaty negotiations. Most importantly, Métis people were the relatives of the first nations people present.

Research demonstrates that Métis people were involved in, and relevant at, many of the treaty negotiations. In the case of my research on Treaty No. 4, the spokesmen for first nations people referred to a Métis presence. Alexander Morris's textbook, which was reprinted in 1991, provides a written account—albeit a colonial account—of the negotiations for the early treaties and the post-Confederation numbered treaties up to and including Treaty No. 7. In the Treaty No. 4 negotiations, the Gambler was appointed by Loud Voice to speak for him. He was a principal chief of the Cree, so when he spoke, all listened. Loud Voice would later take up as leader of the Ochapowace Nation. He told Commissioner Alexander Morris through the Gambler that certain things were “in the way” of moving forward in the Treaty No. 4 discussions.

One thing was.... Earlier that day, the first nations people had observed that Morris was reluctant to shake the hand of a Métis person. This caused a lot of mistrust among first nations people. The Gambler described it by saying:

This morning I saw the chief of the soldiers, who asked me what is in your way that you cannot come and meet the Queen's messengers; then I told him what was in the way. And now that I am come in, what do I see? You were rather slow in giving your hand. You said that the Queen spoke through you and spoke very plainly, but I cannot speak about what you said at present; the thing that is in the way that is what I am working at.

The Gambler continued:

I told the soldier master you did not set your camp in order, you came and staid beyond over there, that is the reason I did not run in over there. Now when you have come here, you see sitting out there a mixture of Half-breeds, Crees, Saulteaux and Stonies, all are one, and you were slow in taking the hand of a Half-breed. All these things are many things that are in my way. I cannot speak about them.

Commissioner Morris responded to the Gambler with:

We have here Crees, Saulteaux, Assiniboines and other Indians, they are all one, and we have another people, the Half-breeds, they are of your blood and my blood. The Queen cares for them, one of them is here an officer with a Queen's coat on his back. At the Lake of the Woods last winter every Half-Breed who was there with me was helping me, and I was proud of it, and glad to take the word back to the Queen, and her servants, and...you may leave the Half-breeds in the hands of the Queen who will deal generously and justly with them. There was a Half-breed came forward to the table. He was only one of many here. I simply wanted to know whether he was authorized by you to take any part in the Council....

I will continue as we proceed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much for your opening statement, and I apologize for having to interrupt there. We look forward to continuing the discussion.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend briefly. Mr. Sanderson has been able to join. We just need to do a brief sound check with our clerk and the interpreters to make sure that everything is good today.

We'll resume as quickly as we can, but for the moment, we're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're just getting back into session here.

You have the floor now, Mr. Sanderson, if you'd like to go forward with your five-minute opening statement. I was explaining to the other witnesses that I'll give a yellow card when there are 30 seconds left. If you see me with a red card then you're out of time. Try to wind up at that point, but don't stop mid-sentence. I'll give you a little bit of extra time if you need it, but we want to get into our rounds of questions.

When you're ready to start, I'll start the clock for your five minutes.

[Solomon Sanderson, Consultant, Former Chief, As an Individual]

Okay.

What I did was I reviewed the Métis nation's self-government agreement with the feds and also the Métis nation's self-government act that recognizes self-government for Métis under federal jurisdiction and law, and the Métis capacity to make treaties and ratify treaties, and their citizenship status.

The first term for Métis, as we already heard, was half-breed. That's something that is not addressed, and they call that the code of silence. The Métis had to inherit their Indian status. When they inherited those inherent rights, they inherited the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations, the inherent rights by sector, the inherent rights to education, health, economics, justice and so on, and the inherent right to the title of lands and resources. The inherent rights we have as Indian nations were granted to our nations by the Creator, and they're granted to our people by the Creator.

That's what the Métis have inherited from the Indian heritage they have, and they're guaranteed. Their reserves are recognized and confirmed and guaranteed with the national powers of treaty-making and the international treaties that we made. The Métis inherited Treaty No. 3 in Ontario, as you know. We are born with those rights and that status, and we inherit them from generation to generation.

Now, on the non-Indian side, they inherited the colonial benefits that the non-Indians have: the criteria for title to land and resources, for example, and, in Manitoba, the homesteads that the non-Indians occupied and improved. They met the criteria for having title to the land and resources, the Métis settlements and the Métis-occupied and -approved lands prior to treaty. That provided them the title to their lands and resources as you have under your colonial systems. This is one example of taking the best of what they inherited from both sides—the Indian and non-Indian sides. The act goes on to recognize their jurisdiction and laws. It also deals with the recognition that they have to have their own laws. That means there has to be a process in place to deal with the interface between jurisdiction and law within the Métis governments of the Métis nation and jurisdiction and law within the Métis laws, the first nation laws and the provincial and federal laws.

It also deals with the capacity to recognize citizenship. Subsection 35(2) now recognizes that the Métis are constitutionally distinct, and the portability of their rights has to be included in the Métis act. I'm talking about the portability of their inherent sovereignty, their inherent rights and treaties, treaty rights whether in community, regionally, nationally or internationally.

When you do that, keep in mind that nations make treaties; treaties do not make nations. Modern-day treaty-making creates governments. If you don't have a government in the first place, what are you doing signing a treaty? The treaties that are going to be made or that have been made by both parties need ratification and implementation under new specific and unique laws to give them legal effect.

There's a bigger picture that you need to be aware of, which most people are not aware of. The court decision in Manitoba said that the Crown is in a fiduciary relationship with the Métis as a distinct form of aboriginal peoples who cannot be ignored. It went on to say that the unfinished business of reconciliation of the Métis people in Canadian society is a matter of national and constitutional importance.

Ask yourself this: What is that all about? Here's what it's about, and most people don't know there's a bigger picture.

When we talk about the comprehensive legal and political framework governing Crown-Métis relationships, that framework is governed by what? It's the inherent sovereignty of the Métis nation, the assumed sovereignty of the Crown, the inherent rights and title by the Métis nation, the Crown treaty nations, the Métis treaty relations and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Former Supreme Court judge Dickson called it their bill of rights that recognizes everything we're talking about.

Then we have the Constitution Act of 1982, with section 35 being a full box, and section 25 now applying the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Of course, when we look at that, there is UNDRIP, with Bill C-15 now having to implement United Nations declaration.

When we talk about the recognition of that framework, that broader-based framework, what does it recognize? It's that framework that governs by those instruments that I just highlighted, and it recognizes sovereign treaty relations, Crown-to-Métis relations, nation-to-nation government relations, government-to-government relations and inherent rights to treaty rights relations.

The format for implementation, then, or what that judgment is calling for, requires the implementation of that framework respecting political relations: the equality of government jurisdiction and law in courts. Métis—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Sanderson, I apologize for interrupting. We're at the end of the five minutes.

If there's a concluding statement you'd like to make, please do so. Then we're going to need to move into our rounds of questions.

[Solomon Sanderson]

Okay. That's about the end of the statement I want to make, but there's a code of silence that has to be addressed. There are 500 years of colonial policies that people can tie together historically from 1493 to 2023, and that's very critical, because that's what's being implemented today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much.

We're going to go right into our first rounds of questions. They're six minutes each.

First, I have Mr. Schmale for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses on this very important topic.

I have a very short time, so if I jump in and cut someone off, I do apologize. It will be more in the essence of time.

Mr. Belcourt, since you're sitting in front of us, why don't I start with you?

In our last meeting, we had a conversation with the Manitoba Métis Federation. They were indicating that in order to, in their words, make this bill better, to improve this bill, they suggested removing the MNO—the Métis Nation of Ontario—from this piece of legislation. As you are a founding member of that organization, I would like to quickly get your thoughts on that.

[Tony Belcourt]

Thank you for the question.

I'm very sorry to hear that. I heard that and I was very sorry to hear it.

The Métis National Council has always embraced the Métis Nation of Ontario, going back to the very beginning. On the Supreme Court of Canada decision, after that decision came down in 2003, Clem Chartier, who was president at the time, said, “As Sault St. Marie is part of the larger Métis Nation, this decision will have far reaching implications on the larger Métis collective throughout the Métis Nation Homeland [throughout] Western Canada. The people who stand charged before you today are descendants of the Historic Métis Nation, and more specifically, the historic Métis community at Sault Ste Marie.”

What is really baffling to me is why the Manitoba Métis Federation would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Powley, so that the people there could enjoy the constitutional right to hunt and fish for food. It's kind of hypocritical to me that, on the one hand, you want to rely on the Supreme Court of Canada's case on Sault Ste. Marie and then you turn around and try to say the community doesn't exist.

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

Some of the justification for that.... I'm just reading from their transcript here. They are talking about membership and some questions around how the MNO works its membership list. Did you want to comment on those concerns?

[Tony Belcourt]

The Métis Nation of Ontario's registry requires those who register to provide evidence that they are a descendant of a historic Métis community. That registry has been reviewed many times for its veracity and validity.

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

I'll quote the Manitoba Métis Federation when talking about their membership and how they align their membership. When we questioned them, the quote was.... I've lost the quote.

They basically—I'm paraphrasing here—referenced, of course, Louis Riel. They referenced the beading they have, as you do as well, and their connection to jigging—that type of thing. Did you maybe want to put forward how membership in Ontario is granted if you know it off the top...? I know you've been....

[Tony Belcourt]

Membership is not granted on what we wear.

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

No, that's the quote I'm using from the Manitoba Métis.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm just going to pause your clock for a second.

Mr. Sanderson, you're not muted, so I just want to see if you can mute. Perfect.

I'll start the clock again for you, Mr. Schmale.

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

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when the Métis in Manitoba were asked that question, that was basically the answer. I've lost the quote here, but that was basically the answer in a roundabout sort of way.

I just want to talk about how Ontario looks at its members and determines its membership.

[Tony Belcourt]

As I said, our people are from historic communities that existed prior to outside control. As per the guidelines in Powley, these are the people who are entitled to enjoy a constitutional right, and our people provide that documentation. It has been reviewed many times, and I'm sure the MNO would say, “Fine. If you want someone to review it again, go ahead.”

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

Okay. Perfect.

I just want to get Mr. Sanderson in.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Sanderson, if you can unmute yourself now....

[Solomon Sanderson]

What is your question?

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

It is with regard to membership. I don't know if you have a question on that or a comment.

[Solomon Sanderson]

I certainly do.

It's up to the Métis nation and the Métis people to identify all their inherent rights and their status. When they do, they interpret those rights based on their own world view and philosophy, traditions, customs, practices, values, beliefs and the Métis language. Then there are collective and individual duties and responsibilities to all those inherent rights, including Métis inherent sovereignty.

They know all that, and what are their plans and studies to implement their inherent rights by sector, such as the inherent right to education, the inherent right to health, or the Métis inherent right to justice and economics? This is looking at the whole economy, which is community-based, regional, national and international, with all your inherent rights and treaty rights intact in every sector of the economy, with ownership and benefits identified through a trade and commerce act with the Métis nation. Once you do that, you have your special laws and policies that implement your inherent rights and the Métis identification of their status.

Some Métis have legislated their own citizen pacts and laws. One guy from Ontario came from a Métis community here to Saskatchewan, and he was denied Métis status. What are the Métis doing, rejecting the portability of their status and their rights that I just talked about earlier? They have no authority to be doing that. They have to change their citizenship act to respect the recognition of the Métis, no matter where they are in Canada or outside of Canada. The portability of the Métis status and rights is critical. The Métis nation has to come together.

Remember that earlier I said that the Métis nation has to deal with the internal interface of jurisdiction and law? You only put your finger on one of the issues that will impact the Métis nation and the Métis government. It's respecting citizenship and membership and how they implement that to complement the rights and status of the Métis and the portability of their rights and status—