Evidence of meeting #83 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 ontario.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Mr. Sanderson, we're going to need to stop here. We're a bit over the time, and we do need to get to the next witness. Thank you so much.
Ms. Atwin, you're next with six minutes.
Mr. Sanderson, you might want to mute yourself again until we get going. Thank you.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's wonderful to be back at INAN. It's good to see everyone, especially for such a historic study. I thank our witnesses so much for being with us today.
On Tuesday, we heard from a Métis lawyer, Jason Madden, and he asserted that the two clear goals of this legislation are recognition and affirmation and then the legal framework for future treaty-making. Would you agree with those assertions as the key principles of this bill?
I'll direct that to Mr. Belcourt.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
We've heard concerns over the perceived potential for supremacy of future treaties over other existing agreements, as well as a lack of oversight by Parliament.
What do you say to those assertions?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Some of the concerns we've heard are that this future treaty-making process would have a lack of parliamentary oversight, and could also potentially have these agreements be superior or be seen as given that supremacy over other existing treaties or agreements.
What would you say to those assertions?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
In any treaty-making process, there are two sides. I'm sure the federal side is going to make sure it's not going to be overpowering another treaty. The treaty process that has been set aside, or the established precedent, for treaty-making in Yukon is the one that, as Jason Madden said, is the preferred one for us. I certainly support that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Would Mr. Sanderson or Ms. Starblanket like to add anything to that question?
4:05 p.m.
Consultant, Former Chief, As an Individual
I can address that.
I mentioned earlier that nations make treaties; treaties do not make nations. The current ones that are in place, like the Yukon treaty.... That's a treaty creating the governments of our nations. That's like saying that they didn't have a government to make a treaty in the first place.
Keep in mind that it's the national powers of treaty-making that you're talking about, of the governments of our nations. They have the power to implement those treaties under their jurisdiction and laws and to give them legal effect, not just ratification.
Yes, there will be overlap in many areas, and that has to be addressed. You're now back to the issue I mentioned earlier: the interface of government jurisdiction and law. The national powers of treaty-making and the implementation of treaties respecting territorial boundaries and lands and treaty rights in every sector have to be addressed formally under your jurisdiction and laws.
When do you deal with the interface of jurisdiction and law between the Indian nations and the Métis nations, the federal government and the provincial governments? That treaty process is not valid in terms of dealing with these political issues that I'm talking about. That's what the judgment said. You have to rectify the Métis relations with the sovereignty of Canada and the Constitution.
Your problem is that most people don't know what that framework is all about. That's been my experience, even with members of government, Parliament, ministers and the opposition. They don't know what that framework is about, but it's been there since 1982. They're still implementing the BNA Act of 1876. That's the comment I have.
However, let's understand the national powers of treaty-making. We talk about treaties and treaty rights. We never discuss the national powers of treaty-making, yet they're very valid. That's one of the national powers of governing. The national powers of governing are governing internal, external and international affairs.
The self-government policy provides governing of only internal affairs. That's not inherent sovereignty. The inherent sovereignty provides for the recognition of your jurisdiction for the internal, national and international political and governing affairs. That's my position regarding the issue you're talking about.
However, when do we go to that political agenda and elevate this administrative and legal agenda to a political agenda dealing with these major political agenda items I'm talking about that I've tabled with you? By the way, I provided you with inherent rights charts. I provided you with a comprehensive legal and political relations chart, as well as the self-journey of self-termination under the 500 years of colonial policies. That document highlights those in about two pages, so you have those charts.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Excellent. Thank you very much, Mr. Sanderson.
I have only about 30 seconds left.
As we say where I come from, you ate your Wheaties. Thank you for bringing your best energy, and thank you very much for that response.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We're going to go next to Madame Gill.
I expect that the question may be in French. If you're English and you're not bilingual, if you need to select another language, you can do that on your controls.
Madame Gill, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours for six minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses who are here with us today.
I know that the topic we are studying right now is tough. As one of my colleagues just said, this is an historic moment, but we are facing some challenges.
I will start with you, Mr. Belcourt.
Earlier, you mentioned something. You said that you wish the committee could see more clearly what is coming out of the arguments against Bill C‑53. I am paraphrasing what you said, but you get the idea.
I would have liked to hear more before your comments about these arguments, even though some have already been raised. I would also like you to tell us what committee members should be seeing in these arguments.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm sorry, but I think there might have been something lost in the translation. I didn't quite understand the question.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will try to be brief. I want to spare the interpreters. That is why I do not want to speak too quickly.
You mentioned earlier that you would like the committee to see clearly what is coming out of the arguments being made against Bill C‑53. I would have liked to hear your comments on these arguments and what you want the committee to see in these arguments.
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I think the argument against the bill is that it is going to impact on the economies, for example.
Is that what you mean?
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
In fact, I want to know which arguments go against the bill, in your view.
You said you want the committee to see clearly what is coming out of the arguments. I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about the arguments being made by the opposing party so that you, Tony Belcourt, could tell us what you think about the arguments being made against Bill C‑53.
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
On the arguments against the recognition of the Métis people, specifically the Métis of Ontario, I can only suggest that, first of all, there have been a lot of agreements that have been established between governments and the Métis of Ontario based on the legitimacy of our people and our communities—the historic reality of our communities.
People are saying that there are no Métis communities in Ontario. In the case of Sault Ste. Marie, do you not trust the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada? That firmly agreed with the decision of the judge at trial that the community very definitely did exist. The decision at trial was that governments have a duty to make arrangements with the rest of the Métis.
We don't need to go to trial for every single community. Surely, that's not what needs to be done. A precedent has been set. The Supreme Court of Canada said that this is the criteria for a community exercising a right.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I am sorry to interrupt you, but I have very little time and, with what happened, I miscalculated the time I have left. In any case, you could send us other responses in writing if we run out of time.
You raised the argument of legitimacy, but you think other arguments should be made to the committee? If so, do you want to talk about those and tell us what we should be looking at?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I do intend to present a written submission with 10 pages.
I'm going to address the issues one at a time in that paper.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I would like to hear from Ms. Starblanket on the same topic.
In fact, I am interested in hearing all the witnesses, both from Ontario and Saskatchewan, on the arguments against this bill.
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Danette Starblanket
Thank you.
I believe that, when we're looking at what's happened with colonization throughout our history, we've seen a real breakdown in those relationship. We've come to compete with one another within first nations communities, between Métis and first nations, and between Métis communities. This is part of our colonized face now. This is who we are. We have to work to decolonize those ways of thinking.
I think we have to understand that, upon contact, we started to create Métis societies. Métis culture came to be born. From there came communities. Métis folks were all over this place that we now occupy and today is called Canada. They did occupy these regions. They moved amongst these regions. As I've mentioned earlier, they were very involved with first nations people. As far as trappers and hunters, they were taking up those avocations as well, those ways of life, and surviving from them. I think that historical existence has to be understood and it has to be realized.
I think we also have to realize that we have come to break each other down. That's who we are today—tearing each other apart. Unfortunately, that's where we're at. We have to heal that. We have to move towards changing that. I hope that's where we're at.
There are people who will put those arguments against Bill C‑53 forward, but I think we have to look at that history and those Supreme Court decisions that have been made and the positions of the Métis people. Their voices and their oral history are really important. I think that all has to be taken into account.
As far as talking about recognition—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to jump in. We're at the end of the six minutes, and I have another person waiting.
We need to jump now to Ms. Idlout.
When you're ready, the floor is yours for six minutes.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for coming here to make statements, because what you have brought to us today is very important.
I want to ask this of Tony Belcourt.
You were actively involved in the Powley decision when you were president of the MNO. At this committee, there have been some disagreements on what Powley means for Métis in Ontario. Can you tell us who Powley applies to?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you very much for the question.
The case of R. v. Powley is about whether or not the Métis person, or people in that case—Stephen and Roddy Powley—had a constitutional right to hunt and fish for food. The constitutional rights of first nations have gone through the Supreme Court various times, dealing with various questions concerning their rights.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision that the rights of the Métis of Sault Ste. Marie were not extinguished. As you know, the Constitution, section 35 says, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Our rights were previously denied as existing by governments, so at the Supreme Court, in the Powley case, we proved that the rights of the Métis people at Sault Ste. Marie were not extinguished by the Robinson treaty.
Contrary to the desire of the first nations chiefs at the time to include the Métis people in that treaty, they were denied specifically. Because of that, the court decided that their rights to hunt and fish for food were not extinguished. Of course, that then leads to the question, if the right to hunt and fish for food wasn't extinguished, what about all the rest of the rights?
The rights of our people throughout the Métis homeland now, and with regard to the right to hunt and fish for food specifically, are very clear. They have that constitutional right. We now need to elaborate with governments on other rights that exist.
Our right of self-determination is another right that is understood and recognized widely. We need governments to have the tools to change their laws to accommodate our right for self-government. That's what Bill C-53 is all about, and that bill will specifically relate to the Métis nation in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.