44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 31, 2023
- 05:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I want to thank the committee members for giving us, from the Confederacy of Treaty Six in western Canada, a chance to address some issues related to Bill C-53.
I am a treaty chief from the Frog Lake Cree Nation, which is part of Treaty No. 6. Our ancestors entered into a peace and friendship treaty with the British Crown in 1876 to allow her subjects to live in our territories. It is important for us to stress that we never gave up our lands and resources. Our ancestors allowed the Crown's subjects to live in our territories, not to own them.
We will have prepared a written submission for the committee. I will not read it, but will speak to a few points and leave time for questions.
This is a Liberal government bill. It is not a bill based on the consent of the treaty peoples. We have to remember that Parliament controls this bill. In the future, if you want to change, amend or repeal the legislation, it is the right of Parliament. Our treaty rights are not controlled by Parliament.
We have noted that there is no implementation plan. How is the government going to reconcile conflicting interests? We ask these questions coming from Alberta.
We are going to raise an issue that is unique to Alberta. The Government of Alberta, during the 1930s' worldwide depression, created eight unique Métis settlements. The Province of Alberta set aside lands for Métis for their use. These settlements are not part of the Métis Nation of Alberta's constitutional structure. However, the constitution does contain language that, if the Métis settlements in the near future want to be part of the Métis Nation, they can negotiate their way into the Métis government. This is set out in chapter 19 of the constitution, with a very strange clause stating that the Métis settlements would continue as created by Alberta.
In effect, the federal legislation would create another structure of Métis within Alberta. One would be recognized by the province and one recognized by the federal government. The situation is really setting up a future conflict of laws. The Alberta legislation clearly states that anyone who is recognized by federal legislation is not entitled to be a member of the Métis settlement. There are a number of court cases that have reached the same conclusion.
We are wondering what the Alberta government has told the members of the committee about the apparent conflict. If the province has occupied the field under section 92, what is the federal jurisdiction going to do? How do industry and other agencies react when consultation is required? Does industry follow the federal definition of Métis as set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Powley, or does industry follow the Province of Alberta's definition as set out in Alberta law?
Does Bill C-53 override any provincial legislation? If it does, then the legislation should be clear.
We have a number of questions.
First, if the process is based on the right of free, prior and informed consent, how does the government determine those criteria?
Second, the Province of Alberta does not appear to have been engaged in this legislation process. How is the federal government going to reconcile the two separate definitions of Métis? Who will decide?
Third, Canada appears to be creating chaos rather than reconciliation. The chiefs in Alberta issued a statement on Bill C-53, which is attached to our presentation. It says that the chiefs of Alberta call on the federal government to abandon this bill that they perceive as “ill-conceived and divisive”. The honour of the Crown is not upheld when Canada creates legislation that disregards our treaties. The inherent and treaty rights guaranteed to our people are not subject to change or renegotiation. That must be upheld for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.
As sovereign nations, our chiefs are standing up for our treaties and for our future generations. We cannot allow Bill C-53 to create a precedent for revisiting and undermining treaty agreements and the treaty rights they guarantee.
We commend this to the members to read.
728 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:09:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think what's happening is this: If you hold status or bill...which was created by the government, you're not allowed to live on the Métis settlements.
What we're saying is that the issue was already dealt with in the 1930s through the creation of the settlements.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:11:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes. I think my comment was about the membership and, I believe, the land. When we're fighting over a territory, we have an issue.
We also have a traditional territory here, which the Métis settlements and now the Métis nation claim. When you use the words “treaty” and “inherent right”, that's very offensive to us because the federal government can't even uphold our treaty.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:13:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I will address that in writing. I think there are too many points to discuss, but it's the same thing. We hold that position. We are the treaty and inherent rights holders.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:17:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think that, in Alberta, we're already having issues when the government lumps Inuit, first nations and Métis into one. Do you know what? We stand in a treaty position all the time, so it's easier to deal with the Métis nation. It seems to be a divisive tactic, and that's why we say that we're calling on the federal government to abandon the bill.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:19:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I guess, if I could take a stab at that.... Whose definition would it be under: the Métis settlements', the Métis Nation's, the provinces' or the feds'?
I think it hurts—how fast you're trying to push this bill—when we, as first nations, are being told on a lot of bills.... In many of them, you can't even find two sentences of first nations' input, and that really hurts. We're supposed to have a treaty, a peace and friendship treaty, and that's why our position is to abandon the bill.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:19:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I believe this is going to open the door for more division.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
When you look at Alberta and the Métis nation, and all the offices across the province, we're confined to our reserves and to our traditional territory, but we're going after the same land now. When my treaty territory and land is in question, then we're very concerned.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:25:07 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Short and sweet, I agree with his statements, for sure.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:26:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think what has to happen.... Even now, you guys gave us six minutes. What has to happen is that we should be involved from the beginning. If you want to talk about reconciliation, you have to involve first nations people.
Sometimes our trust is taken advantage of as first nations people. I talked about a peace and friendship treaty. We talk about the resources, yet first nations are the poorest people in this country. It's 2023 and there are still boil water advisories, just to give an example. You have to engage first nations and actually have some of their input involved in these bills.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We have to start somewhere.
I'm glad that you're hearing me. Again, when the NRTAs were unilaterally done, our people were not included. That was almost 100 years ago.
First nations are part of the solution here in this country. We were never the problem. Now that section 35 is full of victories, I think we have to go back to honouring the treaty and working together, listening to what we're trying to say, and not using the AFN, because it doesn't work for all. We treaty Indians try to uphold the treaty, not just for us but for all of Canada.
We really need to be heard, and sometimes our 46 votes in Alberta are not being heard.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:30:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We already made a treaty. Again, if it was upheld—look at the natural resources, the forestry, the oil and gas, the mines and the minerals—if those were paid to the first nations, we'd be more...“self-sufficient” would be the word. I don't know about self-government, because we're—
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:31:20 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
You cannot have a government without land.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:32:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, I'll take a stab at that, David. The Métis fall under Canada. The first nations fall under UNDRIP.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:33:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think it goes back to the original definition. It's the people who were here at the time of contact, the treaty peoples.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:35:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I just want to say that it's going to muddy the waters more in Alberta. If treaty members live off reserve, what do they fall under? If the Métis people live off the settlements, you're creating the Métis nation. I think you're asking me what they fall under. I guess it would be a fourth level of government.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:36:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It would be creating another level of government. It's hard for us to accept and to understand when we're not given the respect that we deserve as the first peoples. I shared before that our 46 votes aren't enough at the AFN table. We get outvoted. I've seen treaty resolutions get trumped by the AFN charter, which is an arm of the government there, so....
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:37:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
That would be my intuition, but I would ask the government that question.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:44:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I just want to say that it's pretty hard to be first nations in Alberta, because it seems like we're not recognized by the province. It's like another—God rest his soul—Jordan Anderson again. We're bounced between jurisdictions.
Do you know what? Our common goal is to have clean, safe drinking water with no mould, an economy with people working, addictions-free nations and the utilization our resources to have ambulances. Some of our communities don't even have ambulances. It's 2023. As I said, first nations have always been part of the solution. We were never the problem. I think that's the goal of self-determination. We never surrendered our resources. I said it was unilaterally accomplished back in the 1930s. Do you think the first nations would do that? I don't think so.
Anyway, that's what it is. It's being able to stand on our feet in alcohol-free and meth-free reserves, practising our sacred ceremonies and not being thrown in jail for doing that. That would be kind of like self-determination, I think.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:46:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I think that Canada should make all the wrongs right first. My fear is that, when I'm cranky, you'll just go to the Métis and ask for consultation on my lands and my projects.
Do you know what? We forgot.... I'm going to say it. The first nations were here. Then came the foreigners, the settlers, and then came the Métis. We've forgotten about all this, and that's the way it is if nobody teaches it. I'll share that. There is some apprehension from my nation because I see a huge problem coming down the road.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
