Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 86th meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. We acknowledge that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format with members online but no witnesses.

I think everybody knows, now that we're in session, that there are no photos or screen shots allowed. That's for everybody at the table as well as anybody in the audience.

Today we're continuing our study of Bill C-53. We are delighted to have our minister with us. We have the Honourable Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and officials. I understand, although we've had a late start, that the minister will be able to stay for an hour.

We'll get into the opening statements, and then for the second hour we'll invite the officials to remain with us and we'll continue on for the second hour.

We have secured extra resources, so we should be able to go the full two hours. In fact, I was able to get resources beyond that—we haven't received approval yet—but I did want to make sure, given all the testimony that we've heard, that we have the full two hours. I know many of us have flights booked for tonight, so we'll respect that.

Minister, I'm not sure if you're going to do opening remarks, but if you are, you have five minutes. I'm going to use my handy card system, with the yellow card meaning there are 30 seconds left on the clock; red means time's up. Don't stop; finish your thought, and then we'll move on to the next person.

Go ahead when you're ready.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Tansi, hello, bonjour.

I'm here today on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people to speak about the proposed legislation to recognize a Métis Nation of Alberta, Métis Nation of Ontario and Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and their right to self-governance.

This is my first appearance before this committee in my new role. Thank you for all the work you've done on this bill, and I look forward to working with all of you in the future.

Before I proceed, let me thank all of you. I've been on this committee for many years, and I miss the collegiality and co-operation this committee offered. I want to thank each and every one of you for the work you do.

I want to speak today about the opportunity that is in front of us. This legislation is an opportunity to realize Métis visions for self-determination where Métis self-governance rights are recognized in law. It is an opportunity to set right a long-standing wrong, when Canadian laws and governments failed generations of Métis. It is an opportunity to work towards reconciliation based on nation-to-nation relationships.

For centuries, the Métis have fought for their rights. They've registered as non-profits and lobbied governments. They've built their governance structures and institutions and they've turned to the courts to advance their legitimate rights and claims.

The Constitution Act of 1982 included section 35, which recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of three distinct aboriginal peoples, including Métis.

Since then, court decisions have served to clarify these rights and have established legal tests to determine the scope and content of aboriginal rights and which groups hold them. This includes the Powley decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003, which offered further guidance on Métis membership.

Last February, Canada signed updated self-government agreements with the MNA, MNO and MN-S. These agreements affirm each of the Métis governments as indigenous governments with jurisdiction over their core governance matters.

The proposed bill would recognize these Métis governments as indigenous governments. It would provide a legislative framework to give legal force and effect to future core governance treaties, including over citizenship, leadership selection and internal administration.

This legislation does not deal with harvesting rights, and it does not deal with land-related rights or with the self-government treaties of MNO, MN-S and MNA that are contemplated to have either harvesting or land use rights.

The proposed legislation would impact only those who have elected to be citizens of the Métis governments. Let me be clear: It does not affect the section 35 rights of any other indigenous group in any way.

This does not affect the rights conferred on any other indigenous group under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

If future treaties impact other section 35 rights holders, they will be consulted, and that's a legal obligation.

Consultation and recognition of self-governance are both grounded in the United Nations declaration, a road map to reconciliation. The UN declaration act is not just a promise: It is an obligation for the government to support self-determination and self-governance for all indigenous peoples. This legislation is what the UNDA looks like in practice.

I acknowledge that some have raised concerns that are largely based on misconceptions, and today I'm here to clear those up. I'm committed to continuing our collective work with the MNA, MNO and MN-S.

The fight for rights has been a long one, and it hasn't been easy. In this committee room alone, Métis people have listened to some try to deny their existence as a distinct people. I urge the members of this committee to come together to recognize that the fight for rights is an important one and one that should be bipartisan.

The proposed legislation was co-developed, and it's based on Métis needs, priorities and visions for a better future. It is a product of their many, many hours of work and advocacy. A future in which these Métis rights are recognized in legislation and are respected by the Government of Canada is within reach.

I look forward to answering your questions, and I want to thank the officials at the table and many who are not here for their enormous work in getting us to this point.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Minister, for your opening comments, and I would like to now introduce the officials who are with you.

We have Martin Reiher, senior assistant deputy minister, treaties and aboriginal government; Michael Schintz, federal negotiations manager from negotiations—central, treaties and aboriginal government; Blake McLaughlin, director general, negotiations— central, treaties and aboriginal government; and we welcome Julia Redmond, legal counsel from the Department of Justice.

With that, we're ready to move into our first round of questions, which is going to be six minutes for each of the four parties represented. I have Mr. Schmale up first.

When you're ready, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the minister for appearing.

This is a bill that we've had a great interest in as we continue to work through the process, and we thank all those in attendance today for their keen interest in the path.

One thing that we've been hearing, Minister, quite a bit from Métis and first nation voices is the fact that consultation was not done properly. I do understand that this piece of legislation affects the governing of MN-S, MNO and MNA in how they govern their members, look after the children, etc.

Having said that, leading up to this process, there were groups—the Chiefs of Ontario for one, and Métis groups—that were raising kind of a red flag, if you will, for lack of a better word, that the consultation was not done properly in order to ensure a smooth passage of this legislation.

Given the fact that this legislation was delayed a number of times, how was consultation missed in those key months?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Schmale. I'll say Jamie afterwards.

Thank you for that question, and I think it's one that I heard as well when I met with many of the individuals and groups that you talk about. Let me say at the outset that this is essentially a framework governance legislation that ensures that the Métis nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta are recognized as governments. In effect, it doesn't confer rights beyond that scope, and it in no way abrogates or derogates from the rights of any other section 35 rights holders.

The duty to consult, as I indicated earlier, will be triggered when there is a treaty, and it would have been triggered had this process been different or the scope larger. I'm very comfortable in confirming that there was no particular need on a duty-to-consult basis; however, we've had extensive conversations over the years with many different partners to look at the Métis landscape. For example, in Manitoba, we have a very particular process that is ongoing and that is at a very mature stage, and we feel that there will be a similar type of legislation that will come forward there.

In terms of other Métis groups, some may not be in the same position to advance—

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

I do have to cut you off, Minister. I'm sorry; I know your job is to keep talking, but unfortunately I don't have much time.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I want to give you a comprehensive answer, but I would be glad to—

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

That was very comprehensive, and I do appreciate that.

Would you be comfortable with a non-derogation clause just to clarify for those groups that have concerns, if this were put forward in the process?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

The intention has always been to ensure that this legislation doesn't abrogate or derogate from any other existing rights. We will look at every proposed amendment that comes forward. At this point I can't comment, but we will definitely give due consideration to every issue.

In terms of the derogation clause within the agreements, they are already embedded, but I think, to your point, if it does come forward as an amendment, we'll give it every consideration we need to.

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

Some of the concerns brought up from the Chiefs of Ontario—and you may have heard their testimony—weren't so much on the piece of legislation about the governance, because I think that speaks for itself, and I don't think there was one witness who denied the Métis their rights. I am paraphrasing, of course.

We're trying to work a path that can try to make as many people happy as possible. What is the next step? The chiefs brought up the fact that the next step wasn't entirely clear.

Specifically, the part that talked about the treaty, which you just mentioned, and the fact that as the legislation stands now, there would not be a process in which Parliament could have some kind of oversight.... One step further than that would be a vote in Parliament.

Would that kind of amendment be acceptable to you to ease some of the concerns?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Again, I think, in terms of amendments, that my answer will be consistent in that respect, Jamie. We will look at every amendment that's before us and we will give it due consideration.

I do think it's important to underscore that the treaty process as contemplated within Bill C-53 is one that does go through an order in council process, so it's not a pro forma exercise. It is one that goes through scrutiny, so there is a cabinet process that would have to—

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

I think we'd be more comfortable if Parliament had the view on it, rather than... I'm sure you understand that.

The next situation that we were encountering in this line of testimony was the land part. The Ontario chiefs were worried that there would be some kind of claim and that the courts would get involved, that it would be drawn out and cost a lot of money and make a lot of lawyers pretty rich, but it was also pointed out through this process that land may or may not be part of it, and at the same time that there are treaties that don't involve land.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

I think we're out of time, but if I can very simply answer—

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

I have 30 seconds left, I think.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

—land is not part of the treaties that are contemplated here, nor in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You have 10 seconds, if you want them.

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

I can't get anything started.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That is the end of the six minutes.

We're going now to Mr. McLeod, who is going to start off with six minutes of questions.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and the officials for joining us here today.

I think that the minister is aware that I am Métis from the Northwest Territories, that I have been involved with land claims and self-government negotiations since the 1970s, and that we still haven't settled a claim yet. I've had a long history with all that is involved when it comes to negotiations.

I think everybody is aware that first nations are required to keep membership lists; at least, Indian Affairs keeps a membership list, and I believe it's the same with the Inuit. However, when it comes to the Métis, there is no list. With all three organizations, whether you're Métis, Inuit or first nations, if you're not on a list, it's hard to get onto a list.

During the study, I listened with real interest as this committee was presented with many witnesses who talked about the importance of the enumeration process for Métis governments. Many talked about parts of the enumeration and talked about requirements for independent audits, and some mentioned that this enrolment process is one of the strictest and toughest in Canada to go through, because you need a whole family history before you can get on the list.

I want to ask the minister to speak to the process used by the Government of Canada to ensure the integrity of the Métis governments' membership lists.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I'll also call you Michael, if it's okay.

Look, I think Bill C-53 respects Métis self-determination, with citizenship decisions falling under the authority of the Métis government. This is aligned with the principles outlined in the Powley decision, which recognizes the significance of shaping the legal landscape for Métis rights. The tests, essentially as set out by the Supreme Court, are as follows.

The first is self-identification as a member of the Métis community. The second is evidence of an ancestral connection to a historic Métis community. The third is a demonstration of acceptance by the modern community, whose continuity with the historic community provides the legal foundation for the right being claimed.

Essentially, the registrars of the three provinces that we are talking about have gone through and reviewed their processes. In the case of Ontario, some 6,000 citizens who have incomplete records were removed from the list. As a starting point, we're in a very vigorously assessed system that has identified the citizens in each of the provinces and the membership of those who want to be part of these nations. I'm very comfortable in confirming today that this is the process that will continue.

There's also an audit process that's independently undertaken, as well as a cross-reference to registries that are held by the federal government. For example, if somebody is identified under the Indian Act, they would be cross-referenced.

There's a very rigorous process that does enable these governments to determine their citizenship and to ensure that there's continuous scrutiny of who is and who is not a member.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

In the Northwest Territories, I think we have 15 tables that include land claim and self-government negotiations. Some are strictly land claims. Some are self-government. Some include the Métis. Some include the Dene or the first nations. Some are with the Inuit communities. Some are joint. In Dehcho, for example, we have the first nations and the Métis negotiating a land claim together and self-governance together.

Can you speak to how different indigenous governments can pursue their inherent right to self-determination in overlapping areas without reducing the rights of others?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Look, many parts of Canada have overlapping claims. At tables, we have been able to resolve many that may be in conflict. I have seen a number very recently at which we've been able to do that. It's about engaging, in the spirit of partnership and in the spirit of reconciliation, with different communities and nations and distinct groups to ensure that we have a fair resolution.

It is rooted in history. There's deep history in many parts across the country, but that's particularly the case when we talk about landscapes that are often a result of overlaying claims. Sadly, it's also part of our colonial history, one that we're trying to move away from and move forward with.

It can really only happen, Michael, when we're able to be at the table and continue the ongoing engagement that you have identified as something that's happening in NWT. It's oftentimes recognized that there are frustrations and delays. Nevertheless, I think the delays are also to ensure that we get to the right results.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

All right.

Ms. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'd like to thank you and, at the same time, publicly congratulate you on your appointment. I appreciate your comments at the outset that this committee is capable of working collaboratively. I hope it will always be so, because that's the way to move forward on all the issues on the table here, including Bill C‑ 53.

I'd now like to come back to what you said about the issue of consultations in discussing things with my colleague Mr. McLeod. You said that, from the perspective of reconciliation, things had to be done in a certain way. At the committee, several witnesses said that passing Bill C-53, or even introducing it, was a step backwards for reconciliation. They also argued that it did not comply with article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'd like to know what your response would be to all the witnesses who raised these two arguments.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Ms. Gill, thank you for your question and your work on this important bill.

I'm still working on improving my French, so I'll reply in English.

Let me start with the notion of consultation. It is absolutely essential when we engage in issues dealing with the indigenous people. It is a core principle that is required in UNDRIP as well as in Canadian law.

The unique—