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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for your answer.

My next question is for Danette Starblanket. You were talking about the Métis nation existing within Canada.

[English]

You were talking about the occupation of the Métis. Do you think that history of occupation leads to the right to have self-government?

[Prof. Danette Starblanket]

Absolutely. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Métis have the right to self-government, the rights to the land. They require a land base in order to operate as a government. At the time of treaty, the Crown was trying to keep them from this. They prevented, as you heard Mr. Belcourt say, in the treaties.... We know that in Treaty No. 4, they prevented the Métis from being what we referred to as “treated with” at that time, to be receiving the same the rights that the “Indians”—the language used at the time—were receiving.

We were very concerned about their existence, about their rights as first nations people. We wanted our cousins to be dealt with properly and not to be ignored. They absolutely are entitled to the right to self-government, the rights to the land, the rights to a land base—not just the the rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather—all those aboriginal or inherent rights, as some people will refer to them, because they are Métis people. They are of our blood. There's no question whatsoever. They haven't been dealt with properly since contact.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Solomon Sanderson, you had your hand raised. I'm giving you this opportunity to respond as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

There's only less than a minute, so if you could give your thoughts briefly.

[Solomon Sanderson]

I just wanted to say that, yes, you inherited your status, in terms of your sovereignty, all your inherent rights by sector, like I mentioned earlier, and your inherent title. The Métis nation has all that, but you're not implementing them.

It's the responsibility of the Métis, individually and collectively, to come together on how you implement them under your jurisdiction and law. You have to elevate your agenda from an administrative agenda to a political agenda that deals with your political relations, treaty relations, judicial relations, economic relations, fiscal relations and international relations, along with your inherent rights, treaties and treaty rights relations. That's the agenda you need, politically, for the questions you're asking because you need political answers not administrative, technical answers from the courts or from bureaucrats. You need to resolve that politically between your governments, the Métis nation and the federal government, and between the Indian nations and their governments.

Technically, in terms of the title to land and the resources of Indian nations, today, we occupy only 2% of the lands in Canada. Who are we sharing all the rest of the land and resources with? If we can't help the Métis get their fair share of land and resources in Canada, there's something wrong with us. They're entitled to it.

It's time we talked about it politically, and that agenda has to be addressed politically.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to jump in, Mr. Sanderson. That's the end of Ms. Idlout's time.

We do have another panel that we need to set up, so we're going to have to end this panel now.

I'd like to thank our three witnesses for being here: Mr. Belcourt, Ms. Starblanket and Mr. Sanderson.

We'll end this part of the session. I'm going to suspend, and then we'll bring in our second panel. We'll do that as quickly as we can and get right into our second round. We'll be going no later than 5:35.

That's the plan. For now, we are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Welcome back, everyone. We're now back in session.

I would like to welcome our second panel. Since everybody is here in person, I'll go through just a couple of things.

Now that we're back in session, no photos or screenshots are allowed. You have the option of translation on your consoles in front of you. If you have any questions, our clerk can help you.

All of you were here for the last panel, so you've seen how it goes. I'll do the same thing. I will indicate when there are 30 seconds left, and then the red card will indicate that the time is up. It's just so that we can keep the flow of the conversation moving. Don't stop mid-sentence. Finish your thought when you have the floor.

We have lost one witness. We're trying to locate the fourth panellist for today. We have been in contact, and we're hoping that she's at security or something.

We're going to get started with our three witnesses.

Thank you for being here.

First of all, we have Chief Linda McVicar from the Animakee Wa Zhing #37 First Nation. We have Steve Meawasige, council member of a first nation band, and we have Ronald Quintal, president of the Fort McKay Métis Nation.

Welcome to the three of you. We'll go through five-minute opening statements.

Chief McVicar, if you're ready, I'm happy to turn the floor over to you.

[Chief Linda McVicar, Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation]

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

Ziigwaanikwe nindizhinikaaz. Mooz dodem. Animakee Wa Zhing doonji.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

My name is Ziigwaanikwe. My clan is Moose. I am from Animakee Wa Zhing.

[English]

Good afternoon members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I'm honoured to be here on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation to speak of matters that strike at the heart of Canada's relationship with Treaty No. 3 and all treaty territories in Ontario.

My name is Linda McVicar. I'm the elected chief of Animakee Wa Zhing First Nation, part of the Anishinabe nation in Treaty No. 3.

Do you know what a cuckoo's nest is?

A cuckoo doesn't build its own nest. It instead lays its eggs in other birds' nests. That is what's going on here. Métis have used our Anishinabe kin with mixed European ancestry to insert themselves in our treaty, misrepresenting themselves in an 1875 half-breed adhesion. Ask anyone with mixed heritage today if that makes them less Anishinabe. I say unequivocally that this has nothing to do with the separate Métis people in Treaty No. 3. It has everything to do with Anishinabe self-determination of their citizenship in 1873, which resulted in the 1875 adhesion in Treaty No. 3.

I am here to ask that this bill not pass. This bill is contrary to your own constitutional law and to your treaty relationship with us. Allowing this bill to become law would be wholly inconsistent with the honour of the Crown. It would make a mockery of my community and nations' aboriginal and treaty rights recognized under your constitution.

This bill is contrary to your constitutional law because it creates a doorway to the right to self-government for groups who don't have the history that your Supreme Court has made clear must necessarily be the foundation for this inherent or Creator-given right. Parliament does not have constitutional authority to create constitutional rights where none exist, yet this is exactly what this bill tries to do.

To be clear, UNDRIP does not create rights. It is a recognition of the inherent jurisdiction of pre-existing nations and treaties that exist between indigenous people and the Crown.

Clause 8 of the bill says that Canada recognizes Métis governments “set out in column 1 of the schedule” as being “authorized to act on behalf of the Métis collectivity set out in column 2”, and that this column 2 collectivity “holds the right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution”.

Who are these column 2 collectivities in Ontario? They are collectives of non-status Indians from our first nations, who have been allowed to belong to the Métis corporation in Ontario. This includes the so-called northwestern Ontario Métis community, which claims rights through our treaty. There was no distinct Métis community and no Métis nation living or governing within Manito Aki when we entered into Treaty No. 3 with the Crown. There were the half-breeds living amongst us who were part of our Anishinabe nation.

In its Powley decision in 2003, your own Supreme Court established criteria for identifying Métis communities that could have section 35 rights in your Constitution. There must be a group “with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life” with “some degree of continuity and stability”. This distinctive collective identity in a specific geographical area must have been well established before effective Crown control in that area.

The northwestern Ontario Métis community does not meet these criteria, yet this bill would recognize them as having section 35 rights. Section 35 is not a melting pot. We don't all wait to see what each other proves as rights and say, “Yes, me too.” Self-government is an inherent right. It must come from being a nation and having your own laws in Ontario, which did not happen for any Métis community. In Manito Aki, it could not happen without our consent.

Canada will break its commitment to Treaty No. 3, irreparably harming our relationship, if there is a section 35 treaty made in Manito Aki with the Métis. The bill requires no due diligence and no consultation to Treaty No. 3 before a treaty is entered into and comes into effect. It does not even permit parliamentary oversight.

The minister's job is not done here. He should be questioned about allowing this cuckoo's nest. Our kin with mixed ancestry is a fact of first nation history and cannot be the basis of an inherent right to self-government.

This bill is problematic and must not go forward. The honour of the Crown demands this. Truth must come before reconciliation.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Chief McVicar, for your opening statements.

Mr. Quintal, if you're ready for your opening five-minute statement, the floor is yours, please.

[Ronald Quintal, President, Fort McKay Métis Nation]

Thank you.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

My name is Ron Quintal. Since 2005 I have been president of the Fort McKay Métis Nation, the authorized government of the Fort McKay Métis community. I am also the elected chairperson of the Alberta Métis Federation, a collective of eight independent Métis communities.

My community is located in northern Alberta, between Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan. Our Métis community traces its history to the original forts established by French traders in the early 1800s amidst the Cree and Dene peoples who inhabited what is now northern Alberta. The present-day community can trace its lineage directly to the original families of Boucher, Piché and Tourangeau.

The Fort McKay Métis community has persisted together for over two centuries as a people. Our members continue to engage in harvesting as their ancestors did. Our members continue to look to each other for leadership and support. For this reason, our community began incorporating various bodies to formally represent our community, including the Red River Point Society, established in 1970; MNA Local 122, established in 1992; and MNA Local 63, established in 2002.

At the time our community incorporated the MNA locals, the Métis Nation of Alberta was acting as a Métis advocacy group. That all changed around 2016, when the MNA changed from working to assist Métis communities to asserting itself as a government over those communities. That may have been welcomed by some communities, but it was not welcomed by ours and so many other Métis communities throughout Alberta.

The MNA’s constitution, prompted by its negotiations with Canada, asserts that the MNA and its successor Métis government represents the Alberta Métis and all Métis communities. Fort McKay and other Métis communities have made it very clear that this assertion is not true. Despite that, Canada agreed to the same assertion being entrenched in its February 2023 agreement with the MNA, which states that the MNA is the government of the Métis nation in Alberta, defined as comprising both registered citizens and the Alberta Métis communities whose members are entitled to become its citizens. Imagine a foreign nation suggesting that it had the authority to speak on behalf of not only its own citizens but also Canadian communities simply because those community members could join that nation.

Bill C-53 now proposes to give Parliament’s blessing to this hostile and undemocratic takeover of Alberta Métis communities by formally recognizing, in clause 8 of the draft bill, the MNA as the “Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of” the Métis nation within Alberta.

I come to this committee on behalf of the Fort McKay Métis Nation to alert this House that the federal government does not properly understand the Métis of Alberta and that Bill C-53 is based on that flawed understanding that the MNA represents all Métis communities in Alberta, which it does not.

In its present form, Bill C-53 is a threat to Métis communities in Alberta and represents a massive step backward and not forward toward reconciliation. It threatens to unilaterally assimilate all Métis and Métis communities under an organization that lacks the consent of the governed.

If this committee declines to recommend rejecting this bill, the Fort McKay Métis nation asks that you instead amend the bill and expressly limit the recognition granted by Parliament in clause 8 such that it confines recognition to those Métis communities that have collectively and democratically chosen to be represented by the listed Métis governments.

To be clear, if this bill passes in its current form, we will fight it in court. We will not be governed by the MNA. This Parliament cannot legislate away our sovereignty. To attempt to do so is not only paternalistic. It also represents a huge blow toward the efforts of reconciliation.

We have had to fight the MNA for our identity and for our right to exist. We have had to use the courts to do so. We have won every court case, and all this while the MNA had no rights of recognition. I fear to see what will come if Canada passes this bill and the MNA has rights that are recognized. We will be there to stand our ground and to continue to defend our Métis communities.

We will defend this to the very end.

Hay hay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your opening comments.

Lastly, we will go to Steve Meawasige.

When you're ready, the floor is yours.

[Steve Meawasige, Council Member, First Nation Band, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Steve Meawasige. My number is 2010036101. I am an Anishinabe from the Serpent River First Nation here in what is now known as Ontario.

I come here today to support Métis people in their fight to have their rights recognized. Most certainly, I'm here to support my lovely wife Donna Grenier. She, like so many other Métis people, is feeling persecuted at this time by the Indian chiefs opposing this bill. I know of some Métis people who have decided it is better to be an Indian under the act than to be Métis. There are also many, like my wife, who say they are Métis and will always be Métis, even if given the chance to become Indian.

In 1848, Chief Shingwauk offered the Métis community in Sault Ste. Marie an opportunity to join his band. History teaches us that only four of them agreed to join. All the other half-breeds said they were Indian enough without binding themselves under the chief. Those people who joined were also his children-in-law.

To me, this says a lot about who they are, who my wife is and what it means to be Métis. I believe that, if this bill is passed into law, it would help the Métis and Indians work together for the greater good, as the chiefs many years ago envisioned.

I am not sure what impact my statements will have on my nation or other nations in Ontario, but I strongly believe this needs to be said. I will accept the consequences that may or may not come my way for speaking my truth for the Métis nation.

Many of our ancestors lost their identity through assimilation, and this continues today. My great-great-grandchildren may never know they had a native person in their lineage because of the Indian Act. This bill provides hope that, someday, Canada will allow all Indians to identify who our citizens are. Then, self-determination for us will become law.

This is an important step in Canada's path towards reconciliation. It will protect our lineage. When we are here discussing this legislation, we must think about the next seven generations. Today, we are seeing the outcomes and repercussions of the government not recognizing indigenous rights over the last 150 years. We need to make sure we are not ignoring these rights again. It is always very emotional for me to speak about the next seven generations, knowing there may be ones not yet born who will someday look back and say, “Someone was thinking of me.” This is how we live—by the seven generations and the seven grandfathers teachings.

This is not about a land grab or hunting rights. This is about who they are. I can't decide for other people what they believe in, but I need to stand up and support the Métis who want self-determination. I know it's what many of us want for our communities. This is about Canada recognizing the Métis rights that were acknowledged in section 35 of the Constitution, after robust consultation with the indigenous people across the land. It's clear there are complex and deeply rooted issues that need to be addressed to ensure justice, reconciliation and self-determination for all indigenous communities. The issue of recognizing the rights and identity of Métis people is an important one. Métis people have a distinct culture and history. Acknowledging their rights and self-determination is crucial for fostering unity and understanding among all indigenous communities in Canada.

The struggle for self-determination, cultural preservation and the recognition of indigenous rights is ongoing. It's important for governments to work collaboratively with indigenous nations to address these issues. The concept of “nation to nation to nation” discussions is a step in the right direction, as it can help create a framework for meaningful dialogue and collaboration between indigenous peoples and the Canadian government.

This is our way. We have seen this with the nation-to-nation relationship between the Métis and the Anishinabe in 2005. It's essential for the government and society as a whole to listen to the voices of indigenous people, support reconciliation efforts and take meaningful steps towards addressing historical injustices in order to improve the lives of indigenous communities. The journey towards reconciliation is ongoing, but it is a path that can lead to a more inclusive and equitable Canada for everyone.

I hope this committee understands both its important role in ensuring the passage of this bill but also its role in ensuring that we are not pitting Métis and first nations peoples against each other.

We must remember that we are still navigating a colonial system on our path to reconciliation. Doing what is right is often never easy, but this path is an important one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your opening comments.

I will get right into the rounds of questioning. First up, I have Mr. Schmale, who will have six minutes on the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. It is a very important topic. I have lots of questions, and we are short on time.

Mr. Quintal, maybe I'll start with you. Given your words today and your position not only with Fort McKay but also with the Alberta Métis Federation, did you relay these comments to the government when it consulted you about this legislation?

[Ronald Quintal]

Thank you for the question.

The quick and easy answer is absolutely. Throughout the entirety of the process to reach this draft of the bill, we sent multiple letters to the federal government opposing and requesting consultation in relation to what this bill could look like. Throughout the entirety of that process, up until February of this year, that was the only time that the federal government actually reached out to have a discussion, after they had signed the agreement.

I guess the shortest way I can answer is that, throughout the entirety of drafting the bill and the discussion throughout it, there was zero consultation with my community or the other seven Métis communities of the Alberta Métis Federation.

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

Just to confirm, you had to request consultation.

[Ronald Quintal]

Yes, we have.

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

It was not forthcoming until after February, as you mentioned, when the agreement was signed.

[Ronald Quintal]

That is correct. Throughout the process we wrote letters. We tried to contact the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and, unfortunately, there was just no reciprocation throughout the process.

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

In your comments, you talked about the Métis Nation of Alberta. If this legislation passes as is, it would then, in your words, basically assume membership for all Métis in your area and elsewhere.

Looking at the text, though, I see that it isn't really clear where that is. Maybe you could expand on that.

[Ronald Quintal]

The biggest issue for us in relation to this is that the Métis Nation of Alberta, under their constitution.... The Otipemisiwak Métis government held a referendum for that last year, and Bill C-53 will bring that constitution into force. They basically claim all Métis in Alberta.

Whether you're card-carrying or not, whether you are a member of their organization, they have essentially made it very clear that they will be usurping their authority to come into your community and to make very clear to government and industry that they are the sole representative.

With that said, we've dealt with this same behaviour. We've dealt with the same way of doing business with the Métis Nation of Alberta, without any rights recognition, without any legislation in place, and we've had to battle that throughout the courts for the last number of years, at least six years, with multiple legal cases. Every one that we've had, we've actually won.

What terrifies me is that, if this legislation is brought into effect, without limitations or amendments to be taken into serious consideration.... A Métis Nation of Alberta without rights recognition already cost my community half a million dollars in court costs. What would a Métis Nation of Alberta with rights recognition do? That's what scares me and terrifies the rest of the independent Métis communities in Alberta.

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

Just to confirm, I did a bit of research. Your community is actually bought land. You have a jurisdiction that you're responsible for.

[Ronald Quintal]

That's correct. We've declared self-government. We have a constitution. We own all of our own lands. We bought them, fee simple, from the government. We had to go out and get mortgages to do so. We own all of our own homes. We deliver all of our programs. We deliver all of our own employment and social services, 100% through the dollars that we've been able to generate from the energy industry.

The reality for us is that we've already asserted our rights. We have the lands for those assertions, and it is within our traditional territory, which we have asserted in partnership with the Fort McKay First Nation, with whom we share an almost identical traditional territory.

The easiest way to answer, Mr. Schmale, is that, yes, we already have the infrastructure and the government, if you would, in place to be able to represent our people.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

I want to go quickly to Chief McVicar, if I could.

Some of the testimony we've heard in this series of meetings as we've studied this bill has been around membership with the Métis of Ontario. You referenced it a bit in your speech.

Are there any amendments that you would be comfortable with to satisfy some of the concerns you have?

[Chief Linda McVicar]

I would say no. This treaty that's mentioned in the bill is about land—and it has to be, if it's a self-government-based agreement. The Anishinaabe Nation in Treaty No. 3.... When we asked Canada to explain to us what information it was relying on in entering into these agreements with claimed Métis within our treaty territory, we were stonewalled.

Canada has shown us that it is not interested in protecting our interests. By way of a very specific example, my first nation has been negotiating a treaty land entitlement claim for a long time. It's essentially a land claim. The northwestern Ontario Métis community, one of the schedule 2 collectivities, and the MNO claimed that they have land-based rights in all of Manito Aki.