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.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
To clarify, this piece of legislation only talks about the governance of these three organizations.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm sorry. Before you answer, I'm just going to say that we are at the end of the six minutes, but if you'd like to, please give a brief response and then I'm going to move to the next member for their questioning.
5 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
Lands or no lands, Canada must do its due diligence and make sure that it's not recognizing section 35 rights of groups that do not have those inherent rights.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We're going to go to Mr. Battiste next.
The floor is yours for six minutes.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.
It's interesting. We've talked about the Constitution quite a bit in these discussions over the past few weeks. As colleagues on all sides, we're just trying to find a way to recognize something that has been a long time coming—more than a hundred years—as well as make sure that we're hearing from all concerned parties.
When we talk about the Constitution Act of 1982, it's important to realize that section 35 recognizes first nations, Inuit and Métis, but it goes further on that. It says that the existing aboriginal and treaty rights “are hereby recognized and affirmed.” That's a key line in there. My father was part of the negotiations as they exist now. The government said, “Yes, we can read these treaties. We know they're there, but we don't know if they still exist.” A lot of the litigation that has gone forward on section 35 has been proving that these rights still exist.
As the Mi'kmaq, we've proven two separate sets of rights, but for some reason, in this study, we've heard many people say that this legislation grants existing rights without any kind of wording in the purpose of this act that gets to that.
How do we balance trying to figure out the internal governance of the Métis with making sure that we're not doing anything around existing rights without going to the first nations that might be triggered by a duty to consult with some of the things moving forward?
Steve, I want to start with you. Maybe you can help me. Dive into your thoughts around that.
5 p.m.
Council Member, First Nation Band, As an Individual
First of all, this bill isn't about land rights or anything else. It's about Métis people being able to self-determine who their community is. We know historically that they had.... What did they call them? It was the “road allowance people”. That's common knowledge across Ontario.
I agree with you. The government has been getting this wrong for well over a hundred years. I don't want to correct you. It may be 150 or 170, but the government has been getting it wrong for a long time. Let's get it right this time. I hope we do.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Chief McVicar, we've had the Métis organizations come to this committee and say that this is not about rights to land and this is not about rights to resources. The drafters have said to us that any potential treaties that may impact first nations would definitely trigger a duty to consult those first nations.
Do you disagree with that in terms of what the wording is of this legislation? If so, can you point to the phrase in this legislation that would impact first nations' treaty rights?
5:05 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the wording. It does say that it's opening the door in the bill to treaty negotiations. When you're talking about treaty, as I said earlier, it's about land. I don't think that.... Let me see here. Excuse me.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Just to help you out with that thought, they said that if there is an impact to first nations lands or resources, that would trigger a duty to consult. That way first nations would have to be consulted if there was ever the contemplation of that, which they have admitted to.
If we put in something that said that, if this legislation impacts first nations rights at all, there has to be a duty to consult with those first nations, would that be an agreeable amendment for you?
5:05 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
No, because there's a lack of due diligence. You're giving them rights that did not exist and were not well established before effective Crown control in our area. You didn't talk to us at all, so it's missing our law. We have Anishinabe Animakee, and we have a governance structure that was existing prior to effective control, and we have not been consulted. It's not based on historical fact.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I guess the difficulty that we have, though, is that the Powley decision is based out of Ontario. How do we get around the fact that for 20 years we have established that Powley is law in Ontario, and then ask to take the Ontario Métis out of the only recognized section 35 precedent in Canada?
5:05 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
Powley was about hunting moose. This is about self-government. That is what you're talking about, and you're talking about treaty. In the bill, it does say “treaty”, and you can't talk about treaty without talking about a land base. Powley was about harvesting rights. We have cases that we've taken to court, hundreds of them, about harvesting rights as well. There's a big difference from us.
I did explain what we're having happen with all of the Anishinabe nations. Ontario and Canada are already putting the Métis into consultations with us about land, about resources, about water. It's just going to magnify that. It's just going to make it all that much more difficult for us to assert our rights, which are inherent.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
That takes us to the end of the six minutes.
We'll go now to Madame Gill.
Mrs. Gill, you have six minutes.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also want to thank the witnesses who are here with us.
As I keep saying, this topic is necessary, but tough. As I did during the first part of the meeting, I will leave space for each person since some are vehemently against the bill and others fiercely defend it.
The proposed amendments might help make the bill somewhat acceptable to a minority of the witnesses. I would like to hear all three of you comment on the arguments raised by the opposing party and tell us how you would respond to those arguments.
You have already talked about it to some extent in your testimonies, but I want to give you the opportunity to elaborate.
I would like to hear you one after the other. Perhaps Mr. Meawasige could start, followed by Mr. Quintal and Mrs. McVicar.
5:10 p.m.
Council Member, First Nation Band, As an Individual
I don't think they should start consultation now. Once it is passed, that's when it starts affecting other first nations. That's when consultation has to start. It's not even to that point yet. Consultation starts after. When it starts affecting me, then I expect them to come and talk to my leaders.
If we don't get this right this time, it could be another 150 years. My ancestors—my great-great-grandchildren not yet born—will no longer become Indian, and I don't think that's right. My great-grandchildren, as well as anybody else in this room.... Your great-grandchildren would love to see what nationality they come from, whether you're Italian, Greek, Chinese or whatever. It matters to everybody in this room.
In 150 years, your descendants should say, “Hey, my great-great-grandmother and great-great-grandfather sat in that room 150 years ago and thought about me to protect my rights. They were thinking of me.”
5:10 p.m.
President, Fort McKay Métis Nation
Thank you for the question.
I'm going to speak more specifically about Alberta. I believe there's a major discussion going on within the Métis Nation of Ontario. I want to make sure that I speak to where my strength is and that is my province.
What I will speak to is this: I was part of the negotiations and discussion in terms of how we, as Métis people, can have representation within Ottawa. Again, the entirety of the indigenous population is in an identity crisis in Canada. It's not specific to Métis people.
I do believe that we need to make very clear before any type of legislation moves forward that limitations need to be built in. There also needs to be a higher level of criteria when it comes to awarding any type of indigenous citizenship, especially when it comes to Métis citizenship.
Would I be willing to consider amendments? Absolutely. I came here prepared to look at having that conversation. I came here prepared to look at how this bill could be crafted to protect my community and at the same time create carve-outs for other independent Métis organizations to have a similar conversation with Canada. With that said, I can only speak to what I know. I know the treatment that I've received from the Métis Nation of Alberta. That's all I can speak to.
What I will say is this: I have siblings and a mother who are members of the Métis Nation of Alberta. I'm torn here because I'm representing my people, but I have my family. The reality is, though, that I'm here to represent the community—the nation of Fort McKay Métis Nation.
I would say there needs to be more work. I agree with Steve that we need to get it right. I know that we need to get it right.
The only way that we can get it right is through putting in the work. The reality for me, where I do disagree with Steve, is on consultation. We need to get the cart before the horse in this circumstance. There should have been consultation leading through this process. There should have been dialogue with the people who were going to be affected through this legislation.
In my mind, that is essentially what is hurting the entirety of the conversation. It's the fact that there wasn't enough due diligence put forward when dealing with such a critical issue surrounding Métis rights, which will lead to treaties. Again, there are conversations in Alberta where first nations are also asking questions about what this means for their treaty territory.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mrs. McVicar, we have just a few seconds remaining so you might not have enough time to answer my question. If you wish, you can send supplementary information to the committee.
5:10 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
As I said earlier, I don't think there's a possibility of an amendment.
This bill has a lot to do with land. Even if it were not about land, Canada has to do its due diligence to make sure it's not recognizing the section 35 rights of groups that don't have the history that confers such rights. Canada has not done this due diligence, so no amendments can fix this bill.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We'll go now to Ms. Idlout, who is joining us online.
Ms. Idlout has six minutes. The floor is yours
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses. This is a very important matter that you have put before us. What you are saying is very similar, because the bill is very important.
I have a question for Ronald. You seem to be saying that, when the federal government consulted with you in preparing Bill C-53, what you said was ignored.
What did you say to the government that was ignored, and what needs to be heard now?
5:15 p.m.
President, Fort McKay Métis Nation
What we said, within our correspondence with the federal government, was very clear. There needs to be conversation. There needs to be a conversation with Métis communities that are not a part of the Métis Nation of Alberta. There needs to be a conversation, so that protections are built in. There needs to be a conversation, so that when this bill comes to fruition, and when we reach this stage of the process, we would have had an ability to entertain that conversation.
We sent this multiple times and, again, the correspondence we sent was in opposition to the Métis Nation of Alberta, and strictly to that, because of the fact that we were under constant threat in terms of the treatment of our Métis communities through litigation.
With that said, what we said to the government is that this is so critical. Former minister Marc Miller had a conversation with us after the self-government agreements were signed in February. He gave us 15 minutes. I made it very clear to him that the process leading up to Bill C-53 was not just sloppy; it was lazy, because there was no work put in to make sure that we got this right.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you. You have really clarified that excellently.
I now have a question for Linda.
What expertise do you bring in knowing whether treaties lead to land rights?
5:15 p.m.
Animakee Wa Zhing 37 First Nation
The expertise I have is only from my own practical experience as a leader at the negotiation tables with Canada and Ontario. Since the framework agreement with the MNO, and what we're facing, that's the practical experience I have seen.
Regarding expert experience, I am not an expert. I have a lawyer and advisers. I'll admit that. It all comes back to not doing your due diligence and not being careful about who you're going into treaty with. Actually, you have an obligation to protect our inherent rights from being infringed upon, under article 8 of UNDRIP.
I'll just stop with that. Meegwetch.