Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  What we're doing is not replicating the Indian Act, where someone else tells the Métis who they are. These governments have their own systems based upon a national definition and based upon who they represent. They have objectively verifiable registries. As I highlighted in m

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I will go back to the legal lacuna. There have been 150 years of, for better or worse, a recognition of the legitimacy of first nations governance through the Indian Act. Their traditional governments have been usurped and truncated in some ways by the Indian Act, but at least th

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Sure. It's called the Yukon First Nations Land Claim Settlement Act. There's also the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act. Because there are 14 first nations in the Yukon, Canada wasn't able to negotiate all of the treaties with them all at the same point in time. When the l

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Absolutely. There's no question about it. That's the law of the land. Bill C-53 doesn't modify the duty to consult set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in any way, shape or form.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I will clarify. Powley is the only Supreme Court of Canada case recognizing a community that holds section 35 rights. It's the Supreme Court of Canada case. Following Powley, we thought people after Sparrow negotiated with first nations, or implemented that. We've had to liti

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The Ontario government has recognized seven historic communities within Ontario, in addition to Powley. Powley wasn't just about a right to go to court.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No. What the courts have done with Powley is say, “Sit down, negotiate and try to figure out where those other communities are.” That's what Ontario and the MNO did for over a decade.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That depends on how it would be worded. I think we all know that Bill C-53, as ordinary legislation, can't change the Constitution and can't bestow section 35 rights on groups that may not have them. What Bill C-53 does is recognize governments.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I would have to see the drafting, but I think the basic premise is correct. This legislation doesn't do that.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No. That legislation's been in place since 1994, and I don't understand it as being contentious or problematic in how it's structured.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I think consultation obligations may be triggered in the negotiation of the treaties, if those treaties have the potential to adversely affect another indigenous group's rights. The February 2023 agreements, though, when you read them, are about the internal processes of these

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I did not. I said—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No, that's not what I said at all. There absolutely would be consultations if the treaties have the potential to affect other people's rights and interests. That's very clear. Canada's been clear that in those future negotiations, consultations need to be had. Up to where we ar

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Absolutely. Consultation and discussions are always good. I want to highlight, though, that having a discussion where.... Where I've said that consultations are needed is when people are absolutely denying the historical facts of where Métis communities are. I don't think Métis p

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Métis have rights because they were pre-existing. Section 35 protects only pre-existing rights. If we have those rights, we have them. You don't bestow them upon us. The ordinary legislation signed in February 2023 can't amend the Constitution. What this is essentially doing is