Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 84th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting will be in a hybrid format. Therefore, there are no screenshots, photos or recordings allowed now that we're in session. I won't go over all the virtual stuff, because Michael and Anna hopefully know what we're doing now and have enough experience there.

Before we jump into the first session today, I'd like to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk. The deadline we established is November 29. That's coming up soon. Should you wish to propose amendments, please send the legislative counsel Alexandra Schorah your written instructions. She will ensure amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Today, we're continuing with our study of Bill C-53, an act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

For our first panel, I'd like to welcome Cassidy Caron, president, Métis National Council. Joining President Caron is her counsel, Alexandria Winterburn.

We need the approval of the committee to have non-speaking supports join main witnesses at the table. I am going to ask for unanimous consent to have Ms. Winterburn join Ms. Caron at the table today. Because Ms. Winterburn is appearing as legal counsel, we can't direct questions to her. We can ask Ms. Caron technical legal questions. She may need to consult with Ms. Winterburn and report back, so it's a bit of an oddity in terms of how we're structured in the committee. That's how it goes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for that.

Welcome to the table as well, Ms. Winterburn.

We're going to get right into it. We have a five-minute opening statement.

Ms. Caron, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Then we'll move into our rounds of questioning.

[Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you for this opportunity to address Bill C-53, which is a critical piece of legislation for the Métis.

I am a very proud Métis woman from Batoche and St. Louis, Saskatchewan. My ancestors fought in the 1885 resistance with a goal to preserve, protect and defend the Métis way of life. They were fighting for many of the same ideals the Métis nation continues to fight for today.

I am the president of the Métis National Council. The MNC comprises and receives its mandate from the democratically elected leadership of the governments of the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

For generations, the Métis nation has been organizing, advocating, negotiating and litigating to advance Métis rights. For the past 40 years, the Métis National Council has been at the forefront of this struggle, supporting Métis governments' fight for respect and rights recognition and working together to advance the Métis nation's cultural, social, economic and political interests.

Bill C-53 is the next step forward. It will help what RCAP called the “inexcusable governmental handling of Métis...rights over the years”.

We must all be clear: The promise of Métis self-government legislation is not new. To believe that it is new is yet another example of Canada's systemic amnesia. Time and time again, your governments, your processes, your special representatives, your royal commissions and your courts have recommended the negotiation of agreements that will legislatively recognize Métis self-government.

In 1982, your federation agreed to amend your Constitution to recognize and affirm the Métis nation's inherent rights in section 35, which includes the right to self-government. However, the failure of the late 1980s' constitutional conferences left section 35's promise to the Métis unfulfilled.

In 1992, Canada came close to formally recognizing Métis self-government through the Charlottetown accord, which included the Métis nation accord, which would have committed the federal and provincial governments to negotiate the implementation of Métis self-government. Also in 1992, Joe Clark, as minister for federal constitutional affairs, introduced a historic resolution in Parliament supporting the constitutional rights of the Métis. It passed unanimously. Through it, the House of Commons supported by its actions the true attainment, both in principle and practice, of the constitutional rights of the Métis people.

In 1996, your Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that the governments of Canada and of relevant provinces and territories be prepared to negotiate immediately with the appropriate Métis representative on the manner in which Métis self-government will be recognized. When successive Canadian governments failed to uphold their promises and their commitments, Métis turned their focus to the courts to prove that section 35 was not an empty promise to Métis.

In 2003—20 years ago—the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously confirmed in Powley that Métis are full-fledged rights bearers and that Métis rights are not derivative from first nation rights or less than Inuit or first nation rights. In Powley, Canada's highest court urged your governments to finally negotiate with the Métis and support section 35's constitutional guarantee to the Métis for the recognition and affirmation of our distinct rights.

In 2016, in Daniels v. Canada, your Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that Canada has a constitutional responsibility to advance relationships with Métis in the same way it does for first nations and Inuit.

There are even more examples where your processes have repeatedly led to the same recommendations calling for the full recognition of Métis rights. In 2016, Canada's ministerial special representative, Tom Isaac, released his report, which included many of these same recommendations. He reminded Canada of its duty to reconcile with Métis and adhere to the honour of the Crown, which demands full implementation of its obligations to all aboriginal peoples under section 35.

Even just this past June 2023, Canada committed in the UNDRIP action plan that, “Consistent with the commitment to co-develop approaches for the implementation of the right to self-determination, Canada will introduce federal legislation to implement the co-developed Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreements”.

Again, none of these conversations are new. Métis rights are not new. Métis self-government is not new. What is new is that Canada is finally taking action on what it has long promised.

For 40 years, the Métis National Council has been the national voice for our Métis governments to advance the interests and priorities of the section 35 rights-holding Métis citizens that they represent. These are the section 35 rights holders that Canada owes a duty to. Bill C-53 is a step to ensuring Canada's now 40-year-old promise of section 35 to the Métis is finally fulfilled.

Simply put, it's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much for your opening statement.

I have to say, as someone born and raised in Saskatchewan, that I've been to Batoche many times. It's an absolutely amazing place, and I look forward to being able to visit again sometime in the future.

With that, we're going to get into our rounds of questions.

I should have mentioned at the beginning that I have a quick visual card system. This means that 30 seconds are left on the clock, and the red means that time's up. Don't stop mid-sentence, but wind up your thoughts so we can get on to the next round of questions.

I have Mr. Schmale first on my list for six minutes.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witness for appearing today. I do appreciate her view and look forward to the back and forth we're about to have.

I think some of the statements we've had, whether from chiefs in Ontario or Métis in Alberta, are about land and governance. I know that this bill touches on the operating of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, but, at the same time, what was raised is what comes next.

Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler talked about issues around land that he might perceive as issues going forward—the consultation piece he was talking about. He was pointing out that there are no exact borders, so how would you define that, potentially, if you see the treaty process as what comes next? How do you see that coming together when you have chiefs in northern Ontario saying, as in the case of Grand Chief Fiddler, that these communities do not exist, that they're “fictional”? That was his word.

[Cassidy Caron]

Thank you for the question.

First and foremost, what is really important to focus on—and we've had these conversations—is what is in this legislation and what is not in this legislation. That's what we're here to study.

The bill does not touch on the negotiation of lands. It does talk about future negotiations of treaties, but this bill fundamentally does two things. It recognizes the status quo that's existed for the last 100-plus years that these are Métis governments and they represent Métis collectivities. When treaties are negotiated, they also don't necessarily need to be land treaties.

Member Battiste has spoken about this in previous hearings. Treaties can also refer to peace and friendship treaties. They don't always necessarily lead to land. When the treaties are negotiated, if they are to impact first nations' rights, then there will be a duty to consult triggered and they will be consulted.

At this point in time, this piece of legislation does not speak to that. It's simply about the internal governance of these three Métis governments.

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

Do you see it potentially coming back to land?

[Cassidy Caron]

I can't predict the future there.

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

I think those were some of the concerns that the chiefs in Ontario were talking about. It's true that the duty to consult kicks in at the next phase, but at that point, there is no mechanism to bring that treaty piece back to Parliament. It was an order in council. I think that was the part that the chiefs were bringing to our attention.

If there was no vote in Parliament on the treaty part, the duty to consult should have happened at the beginning, because there is no recourse on the second part, if you understand what I'm saying. If the treaty comes, and it does involve land and there is the consultation, the order in council would be the final approval, not the Parliament of Canada, which would have the ability to have this kind of discussion about it.

[Cassidy Caron]

However, if the treaty negotiations result in something that would impact first nations' rights, that would trigger the duty to consult with that first nation prior to the conclusion of the treaty.

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

Yes, that's the other part, and I think that's what we're trying to zero in on now and trying to figure out a path forward on, the fact that the Governor in Council could do this almost behind closed doors without the approval of Parliament. It could include land. It might not—you're right. It might not, but it could. I think that was the point the chiefs were trying to make, and I'm trying to figure out a happy medium here.

Would you have objections to an amendment that had a vote in Parliament on a treaty?

[Cassidy Caron]

Because this piece of legislation is not the Métis National Council's legislation—it is the legislation that was codeveloped with these Métis governments—any amendments would need to be reviewed and approved by those three Métis governments. The Métis National Council would then support the position put forward by those three Métis governments.

When we're talking about the order in council process for these pieces, there's a precedent that's already been set. Consistently throughout history, Canada has created double standards for the Métis, and that's exactly what this would be doing.

Again, I think it's important to know that there's a precedent and there's a process. If rights will be impacted, that will trigger a duty to consult. Those processes will be followed, and if there are amendments that are going to be made to this legislation, they have to go back in consultation and codevelopment with the partners who codeveloped this piece of legislation.

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

Okay. I think I have only 30 seconds left. I'll try to get a quick question in so you can answer.

I was talking about testimony from the Manitoba Métis Federation. They were quite concerned about membership and how that dovetails with Ontario. How do you view membership?

I know what's in writing, and I know it's on your website, but how do you view membership in terms of historical communities, as MMF talked about with Red River?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Very briefly, if you could give a one-sentence answer.... If this side would like to carry on with this line of questioning, they can come back to it.

[An hon. member]

The old chair would have given two sentences.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're a tight ship here. It's one sentence and then we're going to this side.

[Cassidy Caron]

I can't do it justice in one sentence, other than pointing to the fact that our Métis governments have objectively verifiable Métis registries.

I'm happy to build on that if a future question arises.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you so much.

We're going to go now to Mr. Battiste for his six minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for being here, Cassidy.

There's been a lot of discussion at this committee about who is Métis, and there have been a lot of accusations that certain Métis organizations will allow anyone to be members and that there are no criteria. That is interesting, because when I look at MNC's website, it has a resolution passed by all that says, “'Métis' means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry and who is accepted by the Métis Nation”, which is very consistent with what was ruled in Powley.

I wonder if you have any processes in place whereby you're trying to verify the lists of various organizations, if they're compliant with the MNC's definition and if there is any kind of independent evaluation being done on that membership list.

[Cassidy Caron]

Thank you for the question.

There have been many. What I can say is that we know that the citizenship registries of each of our Métis governments, like I have said, are objectively verifiable. They have been audited by third parties. Each of our Métis governments applies that 2002 definition of a Métis citizen that was passed by the Métis National Council.

If I may, I'll read something that Métis lawyer Jean Teillet wrote recently for a report for the University of Saskatchewan, which emphasizes the strength of our Métis government registries. She wrote:

The Métis Nation has five regional/provincial members—Métis Nation-BC; Métis Nation of Alberta; Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, the Manitoba Metis Federation, and Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO). Each of these provincial organizations have a reliable registry that the University of Saskatchewan can utilize. Because these registries require objective evidence for citizenship to be granted, cards that are up to date and issued by them can be accepted with no further quest for information.

That was written by Métis lawyer Jean Teillet for the University of Saskatchewan. That we're all working to fight identity fraud in these institutions, individuals taking opportunities from Métis people, again, speaks volumes to the strength of our Métis registries.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you for that.

I was having a conversation with a Métis professor and friend of mine, Larry Chartrand, and he also talked about the thorough process of going through who's on these lists and that there's further work being done to evaluate. Can you speak to us a bit about what that process looks like?

[Cassidy Caron]

There is an internal process that the Métis National Council has been mandated to implement. That is through a 2021 resolution from our general assembly. Again, I just want to make it clear that it has nothing to do with what's in this piece of legislation—that's really important.

Who belongs to the Métis nation is for the Métis nation to decide. Therefore, we have implemented our own process that has been directed through our own democratic institutions, and we will be following that direction from our general assembly and from our democratic institutions, because Métis people are self-determining.

That's what I'll say about that.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Within the definition, there is a certain part of it that says, “is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples”, which I assume means first nations and Inuit. When we're talking about the definition from the Métis National Council, a lot of people.... Some chiefs have come here and said, “These aren't Métis. They're former first nations.”

What your definition actually means is that they would have to be connected to a distinct Métis community, like the Red River Métis. In order to satisfy that, they couldn't just have mixed ancestry from another first nation to qualify as Métis.

Is that a correct reading of that motion?

[Cassidy Caron]

Citizenship is for section 35 Métis rights holders. Yes, communities that meet the definition or criteria of a historical Métis community have section 35.... That's correct.