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

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

What would your relationship be with something you call the Métis Nation of Canada? What is your relationship with that?

[Dave Lamouche]

The historical Métis in Canada are a nation, and we are part of that nation, whether it's MMF, Saskatchewan Métis or Alberta Métis. I think many of us who have historical roots to the real, historical Métis.... We are a Métis Nation in Canada. That's what I mean.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the end of our five minutes.

We will now go to Mr. McLeod, who will have his five minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to everybody here.

Mr. Chair, it feels good to be in a room where there are more indigenous people than non-indigenous for a change.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

This is a very interesting discussion and a very difficult one, and it's a very complex situation.

I belong to the Métis in the Northwest Territories. I spoke Michif for six years of my life until I attended federal Indian day school, so I am deeply rooted in the culture. Most of my relatives play the fiddle. I dance jig.... No, I should say that I used to dance jig 40 pounds ago—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

—so I am very well versed in the history of the Métis and the Métis settlements in Alberta. When they were formed, it was significant for all of us. We were actually probably a little bit jealous, because we wanted the same thing.

However, our organizations in the Northwest Territories do not belong to the Métis National Council. We have two camps in the Northwest Territories. One is Métis Nation of the Northwest Territories, and then there is another camp, which I belong to, which works together with the first nations to pursue land tenure, governance and all the different pieces required for self-government.

My question is for you, Wendy Goulet, because you made the point that this bill gives exclusive rights to the MNA. I get the sense that if there were negotiations happening with your government at the same time this was happening, then maybe we wouldn't be in this situation. It seems like one has overtaken the other.

Is that the situation? From where I sit, I don't see the Métis Nation of Alberta taking over your organization or taking over your communities. You still have that option. You still have that opportunity.

[Wendy Goulet]

I see it this way. The Métis Nation of Alberta agreement in place today was made in 2023. It adds the clause about the Métis communities in Alberta. I'm not a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta. However, because I could be, all of a sudden they are speaking for me and my rights. How does that work?

Number two should not be in there at all. If it were just the Métis Nation of Alberta speaking for Métis Nation of Alberta citizens, that's fine. That's how it should be. However, they cannot speak for somebody who hasn't given them the right. That's my constitutional right. It's our right. It's not our right to give them or for them to speak for us. They never came to me. Canada never came to me to ask me if it could speak on my behalf and about my historical right to my community.

Yes, it's good that they're doing this. Again, if that part is out of there.... If the bill goes forward but they take “Métis Nation of Alberta” or “Métis Nation within Alberta” out of the schedule, that's fine. Let's go back and have it defined clearly. The Settlements should be in there. They should be at the table. I don't understand how they weren't at the table with the federal government to begin with.

I get it. We're little. We don't have legislation.

That's not your question. I'm sorry.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I want to say thank you for bringing the recommendations. I think we need more of those.

I still don't understand how the Métis Nation of Alberta would represent you if you're not on their list. If you're not a citizen or member of their organization, don't you still stay independent, with your own indigenous government?

[Wendy Goulet]

We would, in theory, but it's not clearly defined. With your legislation, you end up going back to the agreement for the definition, because you don't have it defined in your bill. It's not defined, so where do you go? You go back to the agreement to find the definition. You go back there, where it says that within Alberta, any Métis eligible to be a part of the Métis Nation of Alberta.... Then, they are speaking for us. If it were clearly defined in the bill....

I know you can't change that, but you could recommend they take that part out, in that last table. Then it's fine. That was an agreement made between the Government of Canada and the Métis Nation of Alberta. That was just injected. The 2019 agreement did not have that in it. All of a sudden, in 2023, it's in there. Why?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. We're out of time on that.

We're now going to Madame Gill for her two and a half minutes.

This one goes very quickly.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mr. Roy a question again. In his opening presentation, he talked about self-identification. It's a subject that seems to have come up several times today.

I'd like to know what he means by “self-identification” in this case. Does he consider that there are inequities between first nations and Métis nations?

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for the question.

I'll start with the second question.

I won't sit here today and speak about whether there are inequalities between first nations rights or titles and Métis rights or titles. I'm here on behalf of my community, the Kebaowek First Nation, which is part of the greater Algonquin Nation. Again, if I'm going to talk about inequalities or not being equals, I'd rather speak about how we're unequal with the Crown.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Actually, my question was poorly worded. That's not what I meant.

You talk about self-identification. Is this a phenomenon that only concerns Métis nations and not first nations? My question remains the same. How might this influence your perception of the bill?

[Justin Roy]

Thank you for the clarification.

Again, I think it comes back to “nation to nation” and trying to be equals around a table. By speaking nation to nation, we're going to hear about all of our concerns and objections—all the positives, negatives and what have you. When we don't get to speak nation to nation, we're just left as.... I don't like it when terms such as “indigenous groups”, “Métis group” or “Inuit group” get used, because we are not a group. We are nations within the nation of Canada.

We need to be equals when we are sitting around any table, whether it's the breakfast table or this table we're sitting at here today. We need to be equals, and we need “nation to nation”. I can't speak about what that looks like within the Inuit nations, the Métis nations or the first nations, in general. I can speak about what that would mean for Kebaowek. It's being equal with the Crown and its regulators, agencies and ministries when we talk about anything—the replacement of a hydro pole or the potential impacts of Bill C-53 on our rights and titles.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're going to move to our final witness for this round. It is coming back to Mr. Desjarlais, I believe.

You have two and a half minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Since this will be our final round of testimony from folks, I want to thank all of you sincerely for being here today. As my friend Mr. McLeod mentioned, it is a good day when many indigenous people can occupy this place and provide testimony to take up space. I think that's the room and space that we're allowed, and I really appreciate that.

Now I want to turn to what are important questions that have to be answered by the Metis Settlements in relation to its relationship with the Métis Nation of Alberta. In particular, it's about the process you've taken in order to attempt to find a common solution and a common ally in this information.

I understand that there may have been correspondence between the two groups.

Can you explain the history of correspondence and how that history of correspondence is related to the two groups? Where do you folks stand today?

[Dave Lamouche]

We've been here for just over a year, Blake. Ever since we came on, the only correspondence we got was a congratulatory letter from then-president Poitras. As far I can remember, they did not request a meeting but asked if we were available for a meeting.

We responded to them and said that yes, we would like to have a meeting, and then it went silent. After that, a few days before the minister from CIRNAC came—a week before—we got another letter from Martin Reiher, saying that they would be signing a self-government agreement with the MNA. We responded and said that we needed to talk about it. It was too late.

Subsequently, when Andrea Sandmaier became president, we asked to have a meeting. We reached out to her and said that we needed to talk about our issue here about their constitution and their self-government agreement. We needed to resolve some issues that we have.

We had a very good conversation with them for about two and a half hours. We extended the olive branch and said that if we want to resolve this issue, get back to us and let's talk.

Since then they haven't gotten back to us. We even extended the olive branch, saying that we'd get our legal person to talk to their legal person to start the conversation. Nothing has transpired further than that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

With apologies, we're at the end of the time for this panel.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. I hope it was a gentle introduction to the committee process for those of you who are here for the first time. We really appreciate your testimony. Thank you for making the time to join us.

Thank you to everybody in the public who has also taken time to travel here and be with us today.

We're going to now suspend and bring in our second panel. I would ask people to stay close by. We're going to do the sound checks, and we'll get started as quickly as we can.

For now, the meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're back in session.

We're having a problem with Mr. Isaac's sound quality. We will keep him online while the back room tries to deal with it to see if we can get the sound quality to the point where we can involve him in the discussion. At this point, I will get us started with the other two opening statements. If we can get Mr. Isaac on for his opening statement, that will be good. Otherwise, we will not be able to hear his testimony. It's just one of those requirements we have.

I'd like to welcome Adam Browning, president of Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 2003. From the Assembly of First Nations, we have the interim national chief, Joanna Bernard. Joining us in person is Julie McGregor, senior legal counsel with the Assembly of First Nations.

Let's start with Adam Browning for his five-minute opening statement.

When you're ready, Mr. Browning, the floor is yours.

[Dr. Adam Browning, President, Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 2003]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just want to make sure you're able to hear me. The panellists could hear each other, but they couldn't hear us in the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. You're good now.

[Dr. Adam Browning]

Thank you, sir.

My name is Dr. Adam Browning. Since 2019 I've been president of the Métis Nation of Alberta Local 2003. We are the chosen representatives for a large community of Métis in southern Alberta. Until this past September, we were part of the Métis Nation of Alberta Association, the MNA.

The MNA, in our view, is a provincial corporation drawn along provincial boundaries. It is not a rights-bearing historical community. From our point of view, it's an advocacy organization, much like the Assembly of First Nations.

By contrast, our Métis community here traces its history to forts and settlements inhabited around Cypress Hills and Belly River, in what is now southern Alberta. Many of our members descend from families that have existed here for over 200 years, and we continue to exist here as a distinct people.

Our community incorporated our current body as a local within the MNA, with the MNA acting as an advocacy group. Our current council and our many past leaders remain with us as elders. They have observed that the MNA has sought to assert itself as a government over our community.

If, with respect, Bill C-53 is successful, it will see the MNA constitution complete this attempt to assert control over our people. The new MNA constitution asserts that the MNA and its newly-formed Métis government represent all Alberta Métis and Métis communities. We feel this assertion illegitimately arrogates power to the MNA to broadly govern Alberta Métis.

While we're certainly in support of our self-governments, our Métis community has not agreed to cede our communal constitutional rights to the MNA. We were deeply concerned with Canada's February 2023 funding agreement with the MNA, whereby Canada stated that the MNA is the government of the Métis Nation of Alberta, comprising both registered members of the MNA and Alberta Métis communities.

Canada and the MNA are using individuals with no connection to our community to assert control over our community. While this may be convenient and politically expedient for Canada, it is contrary to section 35 of the Constitution. Most of all, it concerns us that Bill C-53 proposes to formally recognize the MNA in clause 8 of the draft bill as “an Indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis” within Alberta.

Bill C-53 provides us with zero consultation with Canada or the MNA corporate leadership. This is done while providing millions in unaccounted funding to the MNA, of which little to none enters our community. This legislation, in our view, is top down. The consultation approach to self-government must, with respect, be rejected by this committee.

The MNA also repeatedly rejects any court oversight of its actions, claiming to be a mere corporate entity. This bill will continue that judicial gap and impunity for the MNA by carving it out of the Federal Court like all first nations are currently subject to. In our view, this is unconstitutional, and it creates a government that is not subject to independent courts.

Mr. Chair and committee, with respect, there is no Métis nation unified across all of Alberta. As you've heard from other communities, that is an incorrect assertion. We are many distinct communities with distinct rights. Bill C-53, in its present form, is a threat to Métis communities in Alberta, such as mine, notwithstanding commitments made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This bill, in its current form, errs in the recognition of who the Métis in Alberta are. The recognition of the MNA, as the indigenous governing body that is authorized to act on behalf of the Métis nation within Alberta, represents, in our view, an infringement on the section 35 rights of local Métis communities, such as the one I represent with pride here today.

With respect, to the committee, we'd like to make two concluding statements. Bill C-53 should be rejected in its current form. I appeal to you on behalf of my community, and on behalf of my elders. We are a large community. This bill should limit recognition to Métis communities that have collectively and democratically chosen to be represented by their listed Métis government. Barring such an amendment, our community leadership will oppose any legislation that infringes on our sovereignty.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee. That's my opening statement.