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

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 85th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Now that we're in session, there are no screenshots, photos or recordings allowed.

We'll skip the formalities for the virtual participants because, if our members haven't figured it out by now, we have larger problems.

I welcome those who are online.

For those in the room, welcome to all of our witnesses. We have an excellent team here who will work on turning your microphones on and off. If you need interpretation, you need to select the language of choice.

When we get into questions, I have a card system here. When there are 30 seconds left, I'll show the yellow card. When the time is up, we'll have a red card. Don't stop mid-sentence; finish your thought, and we'll move on to the next person. Having discussions is an important part of the meeting. It's pretty rigid in how we do it, but I want to give everyone the time they need to share the thoughts they have within the restrictions we're operating within.

Before we introduce our first panel, I want to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, November 29. If you wish to propose amendments, you can include the legislative counsel, Alexandra Schorah, with your written instructions. She'll ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Now, to jump right into it, we have on our first panel, to continue our discussion of Bill C-53, three organizations represented. First, we have Wendy Goulet and Jason Harman from the Cadotte Lake Métis Nation. We have Justin Roy, councillor, Kebaowek First Nation; and Dave Lamouche, president and Brenda Blyan, vice-president of Metis Settlements General Council.

If I got anybody's name wrong, I apologize. You can fix it when you get your chance to speak.

Each of the organizations will have a five-minute opening statement.

We start with Wendy and Jason, when you're ready. I'll start the clock when you start speaking. You'll have five minutes.

[Wendy Goulet, Treasurer, Cadotte Lake Métis Nation]

Tansi kahkiyaw. Thank you for having me today. My name is Wendy Goulet. I have travelled to Ottawa today to speak on behalf of my nation, the Cadotte Lake Métis Nation.

Before I speak about the draft bill, I want to talk a little about my community. Cadotte Lake is an independent, self-governing, rights-bearing Métis community with distinct historical roots. Our community is located in the Peace River-Lesser Slave Lake area, approximately 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton, Alberta.

Our community holds protected constitutional rights as the direct descendants of the historic community founded by the Carifelle, Noskey, Thomas, Supernant, Manitosth, Chalifoux and Cardinal families. These families make up our community to this day. It is about my community's rights that I come to speak today.

Many of the speakers in favour of this bill have spoken about how Métis self-government recognition is long overdue and, equally, that it is the right of the Métis to choose their own government. I agree; 100%, I agree.

However, this House must not make an error in a rush to make up for the historical wrongs committed against the Métis and trample over Métis rights in the name of many over a few.

Bill C-53 is a blunt instrument. If enacted, it will allow one Métis group in Alberta, the Métis Nation of Alberta, to exclusively represent the rights of all Alberta Métis communities, including my own. My community did not vote to pass its rights to the Métis Nation of Alberta. My community was not asked or consulted by Canada or the Métis Nation of Alberta about the agreement that has bartered our rights away.

Instead, together, Canada and the Métis Nation of Alberta have defined the Métis nation within Alberta, which appears in the schedule of this draft bill as the constituency of the Métis Nation of Alberta, to include all Alberta Métis communities, as long as those community members could join up with the Métis Nation of Alberta.

The 2023 agreement was signed in February 2023 between the Métis Nation of Alberta and Canada. It was tabled with Bill C-53 as a sessional paper. Métis nation within Alberta means the Métis collectively and is compromised of Métis nation citizens who are citizens and Métis communities in Alberta whose members are citizens and individuals who are entitled to become citizens based on their connection to these Métis communities living in Alberta and elsewhere. This overreach cannot be permitted. It is not in accordance with the principles of self-determination and self-government. It is other government and other determination.

I recommend that this committee amend the schedule to remove the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis nation within Alberta until such time as an agreement that defines that term is properly restricted to confine it solely to registered members of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for those opening comments.

I'll go with the order on my list. I have Mr. Justin Roy next.

I know that this is our second attempt at getting you here, so it's good to see you in person.

When you're ready, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Justin Roy, Councillor, Kebaowek First Nation]

Meegwetch, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Kwe kwe.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify with regard to this important but awkward discussion.

I do this on behalf of Chief Lance Haymond and the rest of my council members of Kebaowek First Nation.

First of all, the Crown representatives and Canada need to find ways to discuss these matters on a nation-to-nation basis. It is awkward not to have that existing relationship to inform the Crown of how it may impact Kebaowek on matters such as this. To be clear, we would have a problem with any discussion of Métis rights and Métis nation recognition in any part of our unceded territory.

We intervene today to draw attention to the fundamental importance of the glacial pace of Crown reconciliation related to title and rights. There are multiple unfulfilled obligations that those rights impose on the Crown, which we continually bring to the attention of governments, the public and our citizens. If we finally had the attention we deserve, we would not be nearly as busy intervening in parliamentary processes, and we would be focused on the governance and developments in front of us in our territory.

It's the lack of true recognition of title and rights that brings us here today. There is a lack of true recognition of our self-determination and our rights to decide for ourselves who the Algonquin Anishinabe of our nations and our territories are. The new-found expression of settler citizens claiming the right to indigenous lands and title through self-identification is a sharp contrast to our governance systems, which have accountability, kinship and relatedness built into our understanding of who we are and who our relatives are.

In Canada, the federal Indian Act has caused confusion and has misinformed generations of non-status Indians about how to keep their ancestral connections to territories. The Indian Act has disconnected them from their true Anishinabe governance systems. Yes, the problem here with Bill C-53 has been the century and a half of the Indian Act and ignoring the indigenous human right to self-determination, or running roughshod over this right through subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. This is a deliberate strategy to disrupt our connections and practices of living on our territories, and we address that in our communities through restoring ourselves and our relationships.

The issue of the recognition and protection of inherent rights is, or should be, paramount to any Crown government regarding sovereign indigenous peoples and their relationship with us. Unfortunately, we have to say that there are still many flaws in our relationship with the Crown, as well as continued colonial and unilateral policy that would contradict the principles found in Bill C-53.

Let me remind you that the British Crown, and later the Canadian government, took our lands by force, without our consent, without compensation. Our people suffered greatly as a result. Ignoring these historic injustices is unacceptable.

This is still going on. We have several concurrent battles to wage because of our unrecognized title, which hampers our capacity to govern our territory. This means that we must, in a piecemeal fashion, commit to challenging Crown decisions that will lead to impacts on our titles and rights.

That is why we felt it important to come today to shed light on a pressing issue that weighs heavily on our hearts: the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's pursuit of licensing for the permanent NSDF—near surface disposal facility—on the Chalk River, Ontario, site, along with many other nuclear files.

This proposal is causing deep concern within our communities. We are concerned about the health of the river, the animals and all life that depends on the great Kichi Zībī, the Ottawa River. The proposed handling and storage of nuclear waste in such close proximity to our sacred river, the Kichi Zībī, is a risk that cannot be taken lightly. This river holds immense spiritual and cultural importance for the Algonquin nation and the communities that will be directly impacted by environmental issues. This will disconnect us in two ways from the lifeblood of our ancestral lands. First, it will have impacts on the environment itself. Second, it will, through generational knowledge of the fact that nuclear poisoning has been allowed to occur, result in our citizens' being cautiously proactive by staying away from a potential source of harm to their human health. This will result in a severing of this key spiritual relationship between our people and the Kichi Zībī itself.

Our utmost concern is the lack of proper consideration for fundamental self-determination, a human right to free, prior and informed consent, a right safeguarded by both Canadian and international laws. We understand that Canada is consulting a group with no recognized section 35 rights about this project. This is the danger of recognizing a corporate body such as the Métis Nation of Ontario. It has no historic relationship, and certainly no pre-existing legal order or relationship, with the great Kichi Zībī. That relationship rests with the Algonquin nation and the 11 recognized communities.

We implore the Government of Canada to comply with its obligations to recognize and protect our rights, and to voice its opposition to this endeavour to recognize a group of people who have not yet proven that they are section 35 rights holders. To be clear, this legislation must be withdrawn, and real consultations with the rights and title holders have to occur.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Excellent. That was right down to the second.

Thank you so much for that. We appreciate it.

Lastly, we're going to Mr. Dave Lamouche, president, and Ms. Brenda Blyan, vice-president, from the Metis Settlements General Council.

Whenever you're ready, whoever is offering the remarks, the floor is yours.

[Dave Lamouche, President, Metis Settlements General Council]

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable members of the committee.

As the duly elected president of the Metis Settlements General Council, I am proud to be here today, along with my colleague, vice-president Brenda Blyan.

I also acknowledge our settlement leaders, who are seated behind us today to observe the proceedings.

For nearly a century, we have been entrusted by our people to protect our land, our culture and, more importantly, our future. It is no different today, particularly as it relates to the significant deliberations on Bill C-53.

Our written submission provides a robust history of who we are as the Métis settlements in Alberta. It is our responsibility, passed on to us by our forefathers, the Métis Famous Five and those who followed them, to ensure that our voices are always heard.

In the wake of the north-west Métis risings in the late 1800s, our Métis settlement leaders worked hard to ensure Métis prosperity in Alberta, and subsequently to secure our 1.25 million acres of lands, a land mass equalling the size of Prince Edward Island.

In the 1990s, Alberta saw fit to entrench our lands under the Alberta constitution. Through legislation, they recognized and committed to our settlement government, which now serves our people across eight settlement communities.

We are the only group that has appeared before you regarding Bill C-53 who can lay claim to being recognized under existing provincial legislation and a Crown relationship that is backed by a constitutional amendment.

Like you, as governors of the people of the land, we are also responsible for the care of those who live in the settlements that we govern, including for housing, infrastructure, water and sewer systems, waste management, land management, emergency and protective services and other important duties of care. Just as Canadian citizenship comes with responsibilities for both citizens and the government, the same is true for the Metis Settlements General Council and our people.

Today, we commend those who strive to attain the goal of federal recognition of Métis rights and self-government. Our immediate goal is to build upon our current framework agreement with the Government of Canada for our own federal government legislation. Given the complexities of our unique position, we remain deliberate in our actions and measured in our approach to this work.

While we want to see forward movement on Métis rights, we believe that Bill C-53 has the effect of overlapping with authority that is long held by MSGC within Alberta. When the arrangement made between the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Government of Canada is looked at as a whole, there is significant lack of clarity on jurisdiction and responsibility, and there is a risk of short- and long-term impacts.

In our view, Bill C-53 compounds that lack of clarity. Despite what the MNA and the Crown assert, we believe that Bill C-53 and subsequent agreements will ultimately impact us and our people. This must be addressed. The bill must be specific, explicit and clear—unequivocal—on these points. The committee has heard several times that the bill should not affect anyone else, even inadvertently.

We have proposed two amendments to the legislation. We believe that they specifically ensure that the intent of the bill or subsequent agreements do not inadvertently infringe on the rights and legislated obligations of the Metis Settlements General Council or other indigenous governments' responsibilities. We are happy to provide those proposed amendments to the committee via the clerk for your consideration.

In conclusion, I want to impress upon you today how critically important the recognition of Métis rights in Canada is. However, we must do so with care and consideration of unintended consequences of such actions where unique and complex and long-standing jurisdictional responsibilities exist, where land and land rights may be impacted and where care of the settlements and those who reside in them are concerned.

Ekosi. Kinanâskomitinâwâw.

With that, thank you for your time today. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's perfect. Thank you so much for those opening statements.

For our members, I understand we have received the two proposed amendments you referenced and have them in for translation. They will be distributed to members as soon as we get them back, so thank you for getting those in.

Of course, for the witnesses, following the meeting, if you have anything you'd like to submit, we do take additional written briefs of up to 10 pages.

We're going to get into our discussions now. First up, I have Mr. Vidal, who will have the floor for six minutes.

For those who are new to the committee proceedings, I let the members very much direct the time. The time goes quickly, so they may interrupt you to go to another question. That's just how it goes. Each member will control who they direct their questions to.

Mr. Vidal, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank you all for taking time to be here with us, and I want to recognize your community members back there as well. They all came to be part of this process this week, and that shows the importance of the journey for everybody.

I've said a few times as we've framed our discussions in these hearings around this piece of legislation that this is a very significant or even defining moment in our history. We are really determined and we're trying to get it right to make sure we determine the right outcome, not just for Métis people but for all Canadians.

I'm going to start with you, President Lamouche, and with Vice-President Blyan if she wants to be in on this discussion as well.

President, in your comments, you talked about overlap and a lack of clarity, and you talked about looking for that specific clarity that would maybe give you some comfort with this legislation. I know we've had conversations in the past about some of the specific aspects of the February agreement with the Métis Nation of Alberta, and the government has talked about some clarity around citizenship and about how there's nothing in this agreement that impacts Métis settlements.

Can you clarify for us what your concerns are or flesh out the overlap or the lack of clarity that is troubling you on this?

[Dave Lamouche]

There are three pieces of documentation that the Métis nation put together. First, they voted on what is called the Otipemisiwak Métis Government Constitution, and part of the language of the constitution talks about where the MNA would help the Metis Settlements General Council entrench their lands under the Canadian Constitution. There's language in there that talks about their having exclusive rights to the Métis communities and the members of the MNA.

When it talks about Métis communities and an exclusive representative or a government that talks for all Métis in Alberta, for us, what it is saying is that it includes the Metis Settlements General Council, but we've always been two separate organizations. The Métis Settlements General Council has been around for many decades—nearly a century, actually—and we have governed ourselves ever since, under Alberta legislation. The MNA did kind of stem from the Metis Settlements, and they became an organization in more urban areas—the people who didn't want to be in the communities. I think there is language in their constitution and their self-government agreement that purports to say they represent all Métis in Alberta, and then there's a clause that says they do not affect the Metis Settlements, so, to us, they're kind of pushing and pulling at the same time.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

My time is very limited. I'm sorry. I want to get to another question, so perhaps you can share that in some way that is appropriate for you.

I appreciate the fact that you come with not only concerns but also some solutions. I appreciate the fact that you're offering some amendments, and very clearly. If those amendments were accepted by the committee—the people who have a say around this table—would that suffice in a way that makes you comfortable? I think I got from you a couple of elements that could be in those amendments: one, clarity around the impact on other rights; and two, a bit more clarity around the definition of who is represented by the MNA. That's the substance of what I think I caught.

Could you clarify for me, in the time we have left, whether Metis Settlements would be comfortable with this legislation, if amendments address some of those concerns?

[Dave Lamouche]

Yes, the amendments we are proposing would make it clear that the act does not recognize or affect the indigenous rights of any other groups or governments in column one. Therefore, if the amendments were accepted, they would help reassure all parties that the provincial Métis associations being recognized by the act do not represent them.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you. I appreciate that. Like I said, offering solutions is always a positive way to approach it.

I have 20 seconds left, so I'm going to give you 20 seconds.

What's the last, most important thing you'd like this committee to hear at this time?

[Brenda Blyan, Vice-President, Metis Settlements General Council]

We want to protect the jurisdictions of the lands we have developed over the last 100 years and that we continue to live on. The way this bill is written, those jurisdictions are impeded upon. We want to make sure our lands are not impacted.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I will now go to Mr. Battiste, who will have six minutes.

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

I'd like to thank Metis Settlements for their interventions today.

I'm finding it a bit hard to understand the objections of Metis Settlements to the Métis Nation of Alberta. As a first nation...coming from one area of the Mi'kmaq, I find that, if there were something beneficial to all Mi'kmaq, but not to that district, I'd have a hard time coming here and stopping the rest of my nation from gaining the same rights I've acquired.

I'm trying to understand. Can you explain to us why Metis Settlements is opposed to the MNA?

[Dave Lamouche]

How are we opposed to the MNA? We're saying we're opposed to the legislation, the way it's currently written, because there is a lack of clarity on who represents whom.

The MNA agreement and the MNA constitution talk about having exclusive jurisdiction over the Métis people and communities within Alberta. When the language in the agreement and constitution talks like that, it includes all Métis communities and settlements. We're saying, “No, that's not right. We're different. We have our own history. We have our own legislation. We're our own government. The MNA doesn't represent us.”

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

Would you say you're different because you're more advanced than the other Métis in Alberta in terms of establishing your rights?

[Dave Lamouche]

Yes. We have long-established Métis land and membership. We've been operating as a self-government for many years. A society or non-profit organization coming in and saying it has jurisdiction over the settlements is insulting and appalling.

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

Let me clarify this, for a second. The purpose of Bill C-53 is to get that exact, explicit and clear vision you are talking about, in terms of who represents whom.

Should it be up to the government to determine that, or should we not pass that over to the Métis themselves to determine, then come back...? I understand there is always going to be opposition to every discussion and move forward, but isn't that part of democracy? You have your opposition toward things that may be important to the whole, which some do not agree with.

[Dave Lamouche]

In an ideal world, that should have happened. That should have happened way back before any agreement was signed by the Métis Nation of Alberta and Canada. We should have been consulted with. If our government was being talked about, we should have known what was going on. In this case, it didn't happen.

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

Aren't those the steps we're actually taking with this legislation? It's to recognize and say, “Go back,” and then figure out what your internal jurisdiction is, to use your words, and who represents whom.

Isn't that all part of the process of self-determination that's recognized by UNDRIP, which is to get to where you're asking them to be when they actually make treaties in the future?

[Dave Lamouche]

First of all, I don't know what the process is. If you think this is the right process, we're now at the stage where we come to a consultation process. I think all of this would have been avoided, from our perspective, if the conversations had happened before among us, the MNA and Canada.

We signed a framework agreement with Canada back in 2018, and we haven't advanced our negotiations since then. All the negotiations were happening with the MNA.

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

Mr. Roy, you brought up subsections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Indian Act. Part of the duty of the Crown is to act honourably with indigenous communities in Canada.

Do you think the honourable thing for us to do—and I ask this as a status Indian myself—is to say to Métis and Inuit in Canada, “Since I can't pass down my status in perpetuity, no else should,” or do you think the proper thing is to, instead, figure out how to make first nations able to pass down that status under the Indian Act?

[Justin Roy]

That's a very good question.

I still consider myself a young leader within my community and my nation. I truly don't have all the answers to questions of that nature. Is the Indian Act 100% correct in how it's written and how it's made us live for the last 150 years? No, it's not. Is what's being proposed here a solution that's better than, say, the Indian Act? I don't agree with that.

Is there somewhere in the middle where, again, if we have the proper leaders of our communities, leaders of our nations, elders, cultural keepers, land protectors...? Note, there are people who have been pushing and striving for a lot of these issues to be resolved over these past generations. If we had these people around the table, I think we could find solutions to the questions you are asking me today.