Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

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

Are you aware that on November 20, the government opened up considerations and consultations around removing the second-generation cut-off?

[Justin Roy]

No, I wasn't aware, but I'm glad to be made aware.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the end of that time.

We're going to go to our next member, Madame Gill, who I believe is online.

Madame Gill, the floor is yours.

You have the floor for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank all the witnesses.

I'd like to ask Mr. Justin Roy about what he said earlier. I believe that at the beginning of his presentation, he mentioned that he would see a problem with any discussion of certain rights or recognition of rights on the territory of the Kebaowek Nation.

What would be the impact of Bill C‑53 on the titles and rights of the Kebaowek Nation, if passed?

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Gill.

The impact on Kebaowek rights.... Again, we're in numerous battles every single day, every single week, on projects, whether they're waste dumps, bridges, dams, pipelines or what have you. We want to be equals at a table. We want to have our rights and our titles recognized. We want to have our indigenous jurisdiction recognized. We want to have our unceded Algonquin territory recognized. Until that happens....

When we are trying to sit at the table with the Crown, its regulators, its agencies and proponents of projects, it's tough to have meaningful communication and dialogue, because we're not equals at this table.

What's even more concerning is that not only are we not equals at this table, but others, supposed rights holders and title holders, are sitting at the same table, having their voices listened to, however you want to put it, when, again, an indigenous community is trying to speak and voice its concerns.

It's tough to pinpoint exactly what the impact on our rights would be regarding this legislation and projects currently taking place on our unceded Algonquin territory. The biggest impact is that our rights have yet to be recognized, including our titles, our jurisdiction and our unceded territory.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

We are currently negotiating a treaty with the Métis Nation of Ontario. This could affect you too, as the scope of this treaty could extend to both sides of the Ottawa River.

Do you fear that, should a treaty be negotiated with the Métis Nation of Ontario, it would also affect the rights of the nations on the other side of the Ottawa River?

[Justin Roy]

Once again, thank you for the great question.

I'm sorry. I'm still a bit nervous. It's my first time doing something like this.

Can you repeat part of the question, Madame Gill? I apologize. I'm overthinking it a bit.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I understand very well that it is stressful to appear before us to talk about a bill that requires difficult discussions.

I'll try to put things as simply as possible. Bill C‑53 would recognize the Métis Nation of Ontario as a government. This could lead to treaty negotiations.

Do you believe these potential negotiations could affect your title and rights, given your territory?

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for repeating your question.

Yes. if this bill were to go through, it would have large impacts on our unceded Algonquin territory, only because we have been the rights and title holders of these lands since time immemorial.

There has never been an established Métis community up and down the Ottawa River, the Kichi Zībī, or anywhere within its watershed. These have been Algonquin Anishinabe lands from time immemorial.

Again, I cannot speak for the rest of the lands in Ontario, especially anywhere outside of unceded Algonquin territory, but if we were to give rights to and recognize the rights of a Métis nation of Ontario that encompasses any part of the great Kichi Zībī, it would impact our rights as Algonquin people. That is why we're here today. It's to speak about the issues and the ramifications of something like this taking place.

Yes, it would have large impacts on our rights, because, again, there has never been a Métis community nation within the Algonquin nation's unceded Algonquin territory.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Roy, what I gather from your testimony is that you want the government to move quickly. You say they don't listen to you enough. And yet, it's having an impact on your community, much like Bill C‑53 might.

Could you tell us more about these consequences for your community? You said that, in terms of reconciliation, the pace was glacial or very slow—I can't remember the word you used.

In the short term, what would be the consequences? How could we work better and make sure you're heard?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're at the end of our six minutes here. If you want to respond in one or two brief sentences, you can, and then we'll move to the next person in this round.

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for this question as well.

I'll try to make this as quick as possible.

Being a leader in my small community, there are lots of times when I wish we could put a stop to everything for a week, a day, a month or a year, to just catch up on things that we need to play catch-up on.

This is a perfect example of when I wish we could sometimes do that. I know reality does not allow for it, but to put a stop on the life around this, so that we could sit down and have the time as people, as organizations and as governments to figure out these larger issues regarding rights and titles, whether it's for first nations, Métis or Inuit here in Canada....

Again, it will have impacts on our rights. If we only had the time to sit down as equals around the table to figure out these problems, it would be, I think, a great success for all people across Turtle Island.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I neglected to welcome two special guests today: Mr. Martin Shields and Mr. Blake Desjarlais. Welcome to both of you.

We're going to turn it over now to Mr. Desjarlais for his six minutes of questioning.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

That's wonderful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My honourable colleagues, it's a pleasure to join you again. I know it's not often that I make an appearance in this committee, but every time I do I'm left with the impression that we've done good work, and I hope today is no different.

For the members who are present with us today, of course, it's my unique pleasure to welcome you all here today, and most particularly, the president and the vice-president of the Metis Settlements General Council. As a member of one of the Métis settlements, it's a tremendous honour for me to be able to see you in this place, fighting for and standing for what you believe in. It's been a hard-fought legacy of the Métis people for generations, and it's no different today. I want to commend you and honour you for that leadership.

I want to acknowledge, too, the leadership that's present and gathered here today, particularly my leadership from the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement, Arlene, Billy and Tyson. Thank you for joining us, and thanks for coming to Ottawa.

I have questions that I'll ask following a preamble, because that will assist the members of this committee in understanding what I believe to be a very unique circumstance that we're in.

The Metis Settlements, much like some of the other Métis representatives and albeit first nations, find themselves in a unique position of moving terrain. The moving terrain that Canada has created in this country is one that is very difficult to stand on, and one that has often caused divisive and problematic pieces of legislation, from the Indian Act to today, with this piece of legislation.

It is no secret that trust is paramount in this process. You are embarking on a journey of building trust, which I thank you for, and I commend you for supplying amendments that seek to do that.

Métis people undoubtedly have a right to self-determination and self-government. It is a constitutional section 35 right that Métis people, for the better part of their history in this place, have attempted to exercise. In the very early parts of Canada's history, they exercised it by way of Louis Riel and the provisional government in Manitoba, where the honourable Mr. Carr is from and which he represents.

I worked on this exact issue with your father, who was a very honourable member. He supplied us all the attention we needed during that time, as well, to help advocate for these positions.

Following that, of course, the Métis again attempted to establish the right to self-government in Alberta by way of a movement to establish lands for their preservation and enhancement. At that time, it was the position of the Crown to ignore the fact that Métis people had collective rights. These collective rights were not remedied until 2016, when the federal government lost a Supreme Court case, Daniels v. Canada, after which the terrain moved once more.

The political terrain on which Métis people found themselves prior to 2016 was one on which the federal government said, “Provinces, you are responsible, not us.” In lieu of that advocacy, the Province of Alberta, by way of its own authority, granted the Metis Settlements General Council 1.25 million acres of land, constitutionally protected by way of an amendment to the Alberta constitution, to exercise what was at that time in 1938—and is again today—the right to self-determination.

That playing field moved dramatically in 2016. In 2016, the opposite became true: Now the federal government was the driver of this legislation, leaving the Métis people and settlements in what the Tom Isaac report and the Supreme Court of Canada have consistently found to be a jurisdictional wasteland. The Tom Isaac report, a report commissioned by this government, suggested that the government and the Crown had a duty and obligation to remedy this.

How do we remedy it? Well, we've tabled a piece of legislation that does in fact advance Métis self-government for parties, to which they have the right. I agree that they have the right, and I support that right, but it should not, through the exercising of that process, leave out those like the Metis Settlements General Council, those who have long advocated—for over a hundred years, as Vice-President Blyan mentioned—for this protection and even convinced the Province of Alberta to do so by way of a lawsuit. Do you know how hard it is to convince a provincial government to amend its constitution? It's only happened once in this country, and the Métis people did that. It's worth honouring the contributions they've made.

I believe there's a path forward. One important thing that Métis people have always prided themselves on, and which I would invite our first nations and Inuit members of our society to also participate in, is the project of bringing together our positions, because our enemy is in fact a Crown that is unwilling and unable to recognize that multiple claims can exist at the same time, and that those claims can all be heard in a fair, equitable and accessible way. I really commend the Metis Settlements General Council for providing us—and I think all members of this committee—a possible solution that should unite us in unanimity in this place.

I believe we can find, from this very difficult piece of legislation in which all you members have participated, a way forward that makes certain there are more winners—and I'd hope winners—than losers.

Now I'd like to turn to my questions for President Lamouche.

In relation to membership, how do you feel that this legislation presents complications to how membership is completed on the Métis settlements? Membership is residency-based and applicable to the Métis settlements membership tribunal, which is governed by the quasi-judicial branch. How could that work be impeded by way of membership that would recognize aboriginal rights in a different group, like the Métis Nation of Alberta?

[Dave Lamouche]

I'd like to thank you for those comments, Blake. They really resonate with the Metis Settlements General Council and all settlements, and I'm sure the people sitting behind us. Thank you for that.

The biggest issue that we have on membership and how it is affected is the jurisdictional issue, like who authorizes whom to speak for them. If we have dual membership, both with MSGC and MNA, to whom do you give your allegiance to speak on behalf of your section 35 stuff? Having membership in a Métis settlement is very significant. The membership comes with many responsibilities—to the land, to your housing, to the people—because you are part of this whole community. There are obligations and also benefits.

However, belonging to the MNA has no responsibilities. You can have membership—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lamouche, but I'm going to have to interject. We are at the end of this time.

I am hoping to get one more round of 15 minutes in, so if you could conclude your thought, we will move to the next questioner.

[Dave Lamouche]

Yes. It creates confusion to have dual membership, because the bottom line is a jurisdictional issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt, but the next round goes pretty quickly.

I have Mr. Viersen online as the first up for this round, and Mr. Viersen will have five minutes.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

My first question is for Ms. Goulet.

The committee has been told by the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis National Council that this bill will affect only people who have voluntarily chosen to join those named organizations. Do you feel that this is the case?

[Wendy Goulet]

No, I don't. The definition of the Métis nation within Alberta is defined broadly to include Métis individuals who voluntarily join it and also Alberta Métis communities.

I would point you to the definition in the agreement.

“Métis Nation within Alberta” means the Métis collectivity that:

(a) is comprised of:

i. Métis Nation Citizens who are Citizens; and

ii. Métis Communities in Alberta whose members are Citizens and individuals entitled to become Citizens based on their connection to these Métis Communities living in Alberta and elsewhere;

I'd like to point out that this was just added into the agreement in 2023. If you look back in the 2019 agreement, subparagraph ii. wasn't included.

Thank you for the question.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Roy, would you be okay with this bill if it excluded land from any possible agreement that the federal government would enter into with the Ontario Métis?

[Justin Roy]

I don't want to make it as simple as saying just excluding land would make it amenable and we would be agreeable to the act and how it is being proposed. If we want to put it in a simple solution, that could be part of it, sure. I think that the best solution is bringing the Algonquin nation and other nations that are now within the province of Ontario around a table, as equals, to discuss these matters in detail.

To just say that removing the land that maybe touches Kebaowek or the Algonquin nation from the bill would make us all agreeable to the act is tough for me to say as just one individual. Again, truly, we hear a lot about reconciliation, but what we forget to mention all the time is the word “truth”. It's “truth and reconciliation”. Having the truth spoken openly around the table, having those kinds of conversations as equals, is how we believe we come to true reconciliation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

To the Metis Settlements General Council, do you have any comments around the fact that this is divided into province-specific Métis organizations rather than a Métis nation?

We heard from the Manitoba Métis, basically saying there is just one Métis Nation, and it has its heritage in Batoche, Seven Oaks, Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont, in those characters from history and in the historical connection to that community.

Do you have any comments around that?

[Dave Lamouche]

Yes, we do.

Most of our Métis people have historical connections that come from the eastern part of Canada, and many of them have come to Alberta as well.

There is a Métis Nation in Canada. We're not saying we're not part of that Métis Nation. What we are saying is that there are two governments in Alberta. One is being recognized under Bill C-53, but the Metis Settlements General Council has been around for many years. It operates and has responsibilities as a government within Alberta. We, too, are working towards our federal recognition, and we are also working towards our treaty with the federal government.

Since Daniels, as Blake mentioned earlier, since 2016, things have changed, and we are moving towards that goal as well. What we are saying is that one government cannot overreach and take over another government within Alberta.