SoVote

Context: Bill C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments (INAN) - Oct/31/23

04:45:25 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Maybe we'll go to Ms. Omeniho next and then to Ms. Stenlund.

13 words

04:45:33 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

For us, there are significant numbers of laws and things that need to be done and that, once self-government is implemented, will be within the control of our Métis governments to institute: things like decisions and laws based on family and child services and how to care for our families and children in a reformed manner from what exists today so that we don't have high numbers of kids in care. We need to start looking at laws that are going to help us be more effective around the justice system so that not only do we not become victims of justice but we don't have the highest incarceration rates within the criminal justice system and we're able to become an effective government to deal with some of the issues we're facing within the justice system. There are many different laws. I agree with what has already been said. There are too many to think.... The problem is that they need the tools and resources now to be able to start to institute those things and to push and work with other governments to change things so that there is a better future for our children and our youth.

206 words

Ms. Theresa Stenlund

04:46:58 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you to the two previous speakers. I just want to remind everyone that we have inherent rights, and our rights come from the communities. We will need to go out, as Jordyn mentioned, and consult with our communities and our citizens. There will be different levels of jurisdiction and authority. Within the Métis Nation of Ontario, there will be regional jurisdictions, authorities and laws, and there will also be provincial jurisdictions and authorities of different levels, on different matters. All of that is going to come from the people and our communities. They will be the ones providing us the direction in regard to the laws and the jurisdictions and authorities we set forward under our own self-government.

122 words

The Chair

04:47:43 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That takes us to the end of our time, unfortunately. The votes cut into our meeting time today, and we have one more panel to hear from, so we're going to have to end it here. I'd like to thank each of our witnesses—Ms. Stenlund, if you could, pass along our gratitude once again to your son for his being here—and thank all of you for joining us. With that, we're going to suspend, and bring in the next panel. We'll do opening statements, and then one round of questions. That will take us near the end of the time we have today.

111 words

The Chair

04:53:14 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Colleagues, we're back. I'd like to welcome our second panel. From the Matawa First Nations, we have David Paul Achneepineskum, chief executive officer. From the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, we have Chief Greg Desjarlais. Welcome to both of you. You'll have five minutes each for your opening statements. We'll then get into probably one round of questions for six minutes each, 24 minutes in total. That will likely take us to about the end of the time we have today. Mr. Achneepineskum, I'll hold up the yellow card when there's 30 seconds left and a red card when the time is up. Just finish your thought; don't stop mid-sentence. When you're ready, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

131 words

Mr. David Paul Achneepineskum (Chief Executive Officer, Matawa First Nations)

04:54:12 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

My name is David Paul Achneepineskum. I'm the Matawa chief executive officer. I'm also a member of Marten Falls First Nation. I am presenting today on behalf of Matawa First Nations management and the Matawa chiefs council. There was very limited advance notice of these standing committee hearings, with only a few hours given to confirm our participation here today, but we are here. The Matawa chiefs council represents the nine first nations of Aroland, Constance Lake, Eabametoong, Ginoogaming, Long Lake #58, Marten Falls, Nibinamik, Neskantaga and Webequie. The Matawa First Nations has a population of 10,864 as of March 2023. The Matawa traditional territories and homelands are known around the world as the Ring of Fire region, Canada's and North America's emerging lone source of chromite and other critical minerals—nickel, gold and silver—that will be required to reposition Canada and its allies in the new green economy. On June 21, 2023, the day Bill C-53 was introduced and referred at second reading [Technical difficulty—Editor] the Matawa chiefs council issued a letter to the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon, calling on her to respond to protect the rights and interests of our first nations.

212 words

C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to oth

The Chair

04:55:53 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

I'm sorry. I'm going to have to jump in here for a second. I'll stop the clock. Your sound quality has deteriorated quite significantly. I'm having problems hearing you, and I think our interpreters are having problems. Perhaps I can get you to do another quick sound check. We may get you to move the mike. I'll turn it over to our clerk to get you sorted out. Then we can hopefully resume with good sound quality.

82 words

The Chair

04:58:34 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

You have our apologies for that. If you speak nice and loud and clearly, we should be able to get through this. You have three minutes and 20 seconds left on the clock. Please continue where you left off.

39 words

Mr. David Paul Achneepineskum

04:58:45 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Matawa is formally submitting this letter to the standing committee. On Thursday, October 26, the standing committee heard testimony from the Métis nations of Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta that Bill C-53 only impacts the Métis people, and there is no trigger of the duty to consult with first nations on this proposed legislation. It is the Matawa position that the Métis nations are not the consent providers of our peoples, nor are they appropriate legal advisers to be providing such high-level legal determinations and advice to your committee. In this irresponsible capacity, the Métis nations are acting as enforcers of colonial mechanisms and court decisions in their own interests. Canada has not informed first nations of the impacts of Bill C-53. Bill C-53, in clause 8, “Recognition”, raises the Métis nations to the definition of “Indigenous governing body”. It is the Matawa position that the Métis, specifically in Ontario, are not the constitutional equals of the original inhabitants of this land—a role held only by first nations and Inuit. The Matawa chiefs council recommends to the standing committee that a formal analysis be conducted by the Department of Justice as to the impacts of Bill C-53 on the section 35 rights of the land-rights holding indigenous consent providers in Canada—the Inuit and first nations that are treaty, non-treaty or modern treaty rights holders. It is the Matawa position that Bill C-53 will impact our section 35 aboriginal and treaty rights, including aspects of community governance, traditional jurisdictions, lands and resources. The Matawa chiefs council submits to the standing committee the Métis Nation of Ontario's zone map, which is publicly available on its website. As shown on the map, the Métis Nation of Ontario publicly makes unsubstantiated claims to the James Bay Treaty No. 9 boundaries and the rich traditional territories of the Matawa member first nations. The Matawa chiefs council also recommends that the Department of Justice, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and Indigenous Services Canada provide an impact analysis or definition on the parameters for the term “distinctions-based approach”. Bill C-53 will eliminate the distinctions-based approach between first nations, Inuit and Métis that has previously been a safeguard to distinguishing and protecting the established land rights and interests of first nations and the Inuit peoples of Canada. Our land and resources rights, all current codeveloped legislative initiatives on policing, health, family and child welfare, and the upcoming negotiations of the United Nations declaration act will be impacted by Bill C-53. Another ignored impact of Bill C-53 will be in the Impact Assessment Act, which has been successfully challenged by Alberta as unconstitutional. It is the Matawa position that the list of impacts of Bill C-53 on the first nations of Canada has been minimized and ignored.

503 words

C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to oth

The Chair

05:03:11 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Can I ask you to make your closing statement? Thank you.

11 words

Mr. David Paul Achneepineskum

05:03:16 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

In closing, this Liberal government is engaging in irresponsible Crown legislative conduct by advancing Bill C-53. What we are witnessing in Canada is pitting first nations against Métis people to protect the section 35 rights and interests of our children and future generations. Meegwetch.

47 words

C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to oth

The Chair

05:03:40 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. Now we'll go to Chief Desjarlais. When you're ready, the floor is yours. You'll have five minutes.

22 words

Chief Greg Desjarlais (Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations)

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

C-53, An Act respecting the recognition of certain Métis governments in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan, to give effect to treaties with those governments and to make consequential amendments to oth

The Chair

05:08:49 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you. We will get into the rounds of questions right now. First up, I have Mr. Schmale, who will have six minutes.

23 words

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

05:08:58 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses. I have a ton of questions and not enough time, so I will pick up where you left off, Mr. Desjarlais. Could we talk about some of the comments you made just a few moments ago? Last meeting, we had representatives from Métis Nation of Alberta here. They specifically said that a member of, say, Fort McKay or the Métis settlements did not necessarily have to be a member of MNA. If I heard you correctly, you said they do. Can you clarify this?

95 words

Chief Greg Desjarlais

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

Mr. Jamie Schmale

05:10:05 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Yes, I think they were talking about the membership. MNA was saying that you don't necessarily have to be a member to be on a settlement. I get your point—the provincial and federal difference. While we're speaking, I also want to push back a little and try to flesh this out in terms of what we're hearing from the Métis side about a piece of legislation that deals with their own self-governance. The Métis, as we heard in our last meeting, are saying this piece of legislation does not affect first nations at all. If you heard our previous panel talk, it's more of a self-governing piece of legislation to allow them the authority to keep doing what they were doing in the past. Your statements just now contradict that.

142 words

Chief Greg Desjarlais

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

Mr. Jamie Schmale

05:11:39 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

That's one of the things we're also trying to look into and get clarification on. It's our understanding, as this legislation stands—and I invite comments from our friend from Matawa as well—that there is the potential that, after this self-governing piece of legislation, a treaty process starts. That will involve consultation. Potentially, it would not come before Parliament for final ratification. Is that your understanding as well?

75 words

Mr. David Paul Achneepineskum

05:12:17 p.m.
Watch
Read Aloud

Perhaps I can speak from a state view. As far as we're concerned, self-government leads to a lot of things. Potentially, it's going to allow, as we mentioned in our brief.... It's going to lead to lands and resources. It's going to lead to getting our peoples together, and we don't want that. As far as we're concerned, we are the rightful landholders in our treaty territory. We want to keep it that way.

81 words

SoVote

House Committee