Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[Michael Schintz]

That's noted. Thank you.

Not to continue to point to NDP-4.2, but I think the concern that you and Mr. Vidal are raising is that there are indigenous governments who have given testimony before this committee who have made clear their position that they have not authorized the MNA, for example, to act on their behalf. I think that's the same concern that you're touching on with this use of “Indigenous governing body”. It's been our collective testimony that the concern is not founded in the operation of that clause. The clause does not go so far as to suggest that these governments act on behalf of those who have not authorized them, but I do think the issue is precisely what NDP-4.2 is also trying to address.

Whether a definition of “Indigenous governing body” would be helpful, I leave to the committee to determine. I do think you're touching on the same issue that MP Idlout has tried to resolve with her proposal of NDP-4.2.

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

Okay.

Let me do a bit more research here. I think Mr. Viersen is up. Then I'll probably come back if he doesn't clear up what I need clarifying.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay.

Mr. Viersen, you're up next on my list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What happens if we just don't go with this clause and we just say, “No, it doesn't carry. Delete it right out?”

Does it totally destroy the whole piece of legislation, or would it leave enough ambiguity that it would still work but it may alleviate...?

Rather than amending it, what if we don't let the clause carry?

[Michael Schintz]

Mr. Viersen, the bill does two things.

It recognizes that these governments represent section 35 rights holders. As well, it provides the legislative framework to give force and effect to future self-government treaties.

The first purpose of this bill is accomplished entirely within section 8. The removal of that clause would remove one of the two functions of the bill.

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

The crux of the concerns that we've been hearing from other folks who have showed up here, Mr. Chair, has been around the fact that there are Métis people, individuals in this country, who are not excited about the fact that the MNA for example, in Alberta, is being recognized as an indigenous governing body. That is the crux of the bill and the crux of the matter.

Also, around the MNO, there's Celeste, a university professor, who submitted quite a brief on the MNO. Then there was Adele Loosemore as well. Both of them contested whether the MNO was a legitimate indigenous governing body.

You would say that NDP-4.01 references the contesting of that a little bit. You would say that it would be the fix for those issues.

[Michael Schintz]

It's important to note that the jurisdiction of these governments will be over their citizens. Citizens need to make the positive choice to register, and they need to be vetted. I don't want to go down the road of describing our earlier testimony on that process.

I think that NDP-4.2 is a way to give further clarity, to show that this committee has heard the concerns that have been raised before it, and that this bill explicitly does not deal with the rights of those who have not authorized these governments to advance their rights.

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

I understand that. Both of those briefs that I referenced and then a number of other indigenous governments who showed up here contested whether these Métis governments are actually indigenous governments.

That is the challenge that we are faced with in regard to this bill. We've seen.... This is hard work. It's tough work to try to establish who is a Métis government, who are Métis individuals and who are Métis communities. These are things that are obvious to see, but when they're getting federal government recognition or entering into treaties with the federal government, it becomes a little more, sometimes, quite disputed as to who is a Métis indigenous government.

It was stated here at this committee that signing a treaty with the MNA is kind of like signing a treaty with the AFN. It's an advocacy organization, not necessarily an indigenous governing body.

That's the challenge, I think, Mr. Chair, around how we.... I think there is a legitimate concern that people have raised here, where the federal government has handed out millions of dollars—from my estimates, more that $75 million—to particular organizations to create them or to establish them as a treaty partner, when that may not have been the case. It's just that they got a whole bunch of money from the federal government, which enabled them to go around collecting members and establishing themselves as a Métis government, but it doesn't necessarily.... The federal government may have been making them out of.... I wouldn't say out of whole cloth, but they were taking what was an advocacy organization and turning it into an indigenous governing body. How do we reconcile that? How do we reference that? That is the crux of it.

I understand that, if we pull this out, we do away with that and that does away with one big chunk of the bill, so maybe that isn't the ideal situation. Perhaps the government should have taken its time a little more or considered the ramifications of handing out millions of dollars to one particular advocacy group, particularly in Alberta, which is the situation that I know best, where we have Métis communities with self governance. To go and then hand out money to the MNA to establish themselves as a government puts up a major competition.

I'll have to think about this a little more as to how we fix this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Ms. Idlout, you're next on my list.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Uplaakut. Good morning.

I don't get to say “uplaakut” to this group very often. We normally meet in the afternoons.

I do appreciate the line of questioning from the Conservatives this morning.

Based on the responses from the table, from the witnesses, I do have some questions that I want to get clarification on. In Canada's history, with Canada's colonial history, what Canada did to get rid of not just our cultures, not just our languages but our governments is still felt today.

I think the fact that we have to use legislation to recognize their self-government is what's frustrating, and that's what we've heard from first nations and Métis throughout this study. The fact is that legislation recognizing an indigenous governing body is still a form of colonialism.

Having said that, I've always tried in this study to make sure that I'm founded in the fact that Métis do inherently have a right to self-government. Through this study, we've learned that there have been a lot of infringements and valid concerns about what this Liberal government has done to get Bill C-53 on the table. Because of that, we've heard that a lot of division has been created, not just between first nations and Métis, but Métis against Métis, which is the most disrespect that I've seen.

It's so unfortunate that we learned through this study that while MNA, the Métis Nation of Alberta, was doing great work to be recognized as a self-governing body, at the same time, the Metis Settlement General Council was being ignored and was not a part of these discussions. To see that division in Alberta between the Métis is a huge injustice, and that's what we're grappling with here today. That's what we, as parliamentarians, are trying to reconcile, because we should not be seen to be trying to diminish the good work of the MNA because of what it will cost to the Metis Settlement General Council.

We do need a lot of clarifications if we're going to support this bill because we do not want to.... I know I do not want to play a part in creating more division among indigenous peoples.

When you were responding to Mr. Vidal about indigenous governing bodies, one of the responses from you was that Bill C-53 was codeveloped with partners. Can you talk more about what that process was and why it is that your partners are so adamant that “Indigenous governing body” be included in clause 8?

That's my first question.

[Michael Schintz]

In part, the codevelopment was done through the development of the February 2023 agreement, which set certain criteria that the legislation was intended to fulfill. Included among those criteria was recognition—recognition of their governments and recognition that they represent section 35 rights-holding collectivities.

The term “Indigenous governing body”.... I've been advised that we should not repeat our testimony, but I want to be seen to be answering questions.

In the spirit of that, our partners pointed to a history of the denial of their rights and the rights of their collectivities, and they specifically wanted a reference to an indigenous governing body, as they wanted explicit recognition that they are indigenous governments, because for many years they were ignored and weren't treated as such.

The process of codevelopment itself was a confirmation of their support of the text of the bill before introduction.

I don't know if my team has anything to add.

[Martin Reiher]

Thank you, Mr. Schintz.

I would like to add, Mr. Chair, that indeed, as indicated, we have been working with the Métis Nation of Alberta and other Métis governments referred to by this government and have listened to how they want to proceed. We are also at the table in discussions with the Metis Settlements General Council, and this department is not ignoring their wishes. We are working with them. It's just on a different path at the time, but we are pursuing that path.

Thank you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

That flows logically to my next question.

When you were talking about your partners in developing Bill C-53, was the Metis Settlements General Council considered a partner in this codevelopment process?

[Martin Reiher]

I will answer that question. When we discuss the self-determination vision of partners, we discuss it with these specific partners. It's only once we have agreed on a path forward that we ask ourselves whether there's a need to engage or consult with third parties.

In the context of the agreements that were entered into in February, these are agreements and not treaties at this time. They just deal with core governance. We didn't feel the need to consult with third parties. Once we enter into treaties, that may impact other potential rights holders we will consult.

With respect to the MSGC, the Metis Settlements General Council, I did send a letter informing them of the agreement in February, if I recall correctly, of this year, and I received correspondence.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Can you give us details about that correspondence? If that correspondence is all that you're using to delineate between the Métis, is that sufficient in your exercise?

[Martin Reiher]

The letter I sent to President Lamouche was to inform him of this and provide him information.

Again, this is not an attempt to delineate Métis per se. This legislation and the agreements that we entered into with MNA, MNO and MN-S do not affect the Metis Settlements General Council.

We are pursuing discussions with the MSGC.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

When you're talking about core Métis governance in Alberta, and Bill C-53 seeks to recognize the Métis Nation of Alberta, setting aside that there are separate negotiations, do you think that...?

Also, this bill talks about UNDRIP and when the duty to consult would be triggered. Have you analyzed whether free, prior and informed consent has been triggered, considering that core governance in one territory would be impacted against another?

[Martin Reiher]

What we have entered into so far are agreements that are binding on the parties only. In that context, our analysis was that there was no need to consult.

The next step will be to enter into treaties with our partners, MNA, MNO and MN-S. At that point, we will consider again who should be consulted. It's at that point that we will consider whether that potential duty is triggered.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I guess I'm not feeling more informed about what feels like a fast-tracking of one Métis right to self-government as opposed to another in the same territory. It would be so useful to understand how that worked and in what way the Metis Settlements General Council formed part of the decision-making as to what would happen with Bill C-53. I don't know what limitations you have to share that information.

When we need to recognize, unfortunately, through this process that Métis have the right to self-government, I am very concerned with what's going to happen in Alberta, based on the testimony that we heard, because individuals can choose who they want to represent them. What will happen with the citizenship of the Metis Settlements General Council because of what's happening with the recognition of the Métis Nation of Alberta?

[Martin Reiher]

I'm happy to provide a few comments about that.

Indeed, individuals have the ability to choose. They cannot be imposed on to be represented by any given group or body. However, they have to meet the criteria and have a connection with a historical Métis community. It's not just a free choice. That's the first point.

The second point is with respect to the Métis settlements of Alberta. There is a clause in the agreement with MNA allowing dual membership. It depends on how these two organizations work together in the future. My understanding is that there's a willingness to work together. They should be able to move forward alongside...depending on their own visions.

[Michael Schintz]

I just want to make a few comments, some of which are a rehashing of testimony we've given over the last number of days.

I know there have been concerns about and accusations of a lack of consultation over the February 2023 agreement. That agreement is a contract and it's binding only on the parties. That informed part of our decision about whether or not there was an obligation to consult.

This legislation includes recognition of certain Métis government partners that we've been working with for many years to get to this point. Similarly, our determination was that to recognize, for example, the MNA does not have an adverse impact on other governments, even in Alberta, because we're not abrogating or derogating from the rights of other indigenous groups.

When we negotiate treaties with our partners, we will be required—I spoke about this some days ago—to sit down with indigenous groups that feel their rights will potentially be adversely impacted by the terms of that treaty. They will have that treaty in their hands. We need to assure ourselves that there are not adverse impacts or even unintended adverse impacts on, for example, the Métis settlements.

That's a very involved process at that stage, going through every detail of those treaties and getting to a place where we can confidently recommend as government officials that we've done everything to ensure no adverse impacts on other indigenous partners.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thanks, Ms. Idlout.

Next on my list, I have Mr. Schmale. I think you put a placeholder....

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

I think it was Gary and then me.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I had Gary after you.

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

It's okay if Gary goes first, because his questions are going to lead into what I want to ask about.

I'll let him go first and then I'll scoot in, if that's okay.