Evidence of meeting #85 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mna.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
It's been noted that signing a treaty with the Métis Nation of Alberta would be similar to signing a treaty with the AFN.
Would you agree with that statement?
5:05 p.m.
President, Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 2003
That was one of the statements I made in my opening remarks, and that would be a central concern for us.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I am going to move to Ms. Bernard.
I think you were making the same case. Could you elaborate on that as well?
5:05 p.m.
Interim National Chief, Assembly of First Nations
Yes. I do believe that it will infringe on first nations' rights, lands and title if they are to create more treaties with the Métis.
I believe the Métis have their rights, but I question the membership list as we move forward. First nations stop after the second generation, and there is no accountability for the Métis membership as the government has done with first nations. There is that unfairness also.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'm going back to Mr. Browning around the assessment of who is Métis. That is essentially what this is trying to get at.
Do you think the government has been trying to use a broad paintbrush across the country? What do you have to say about the fact that they are from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, rather than a Métis nation as one body?
5:05 p.m.
President, Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 2003
Mr. Viersen, that would be another central concern for us.
I am concerned on behalf of my community and our leadership that the federal government's legislation is seeking to legislate our identity. Our identity is linked to historic communities.
Like my colleague, Joanna Bernard, I have concerns as well about the registries and who could be qualified as Métis. I understand there is some present contention with indigenous identities generally. I'm best positioned to speak to Métis identity in Alberta.
Before any legislation moves forward, I would agree that it needs to be stipulated who specifically our Métis citizens are. We're concerned that this needs to be abundantly clear. We're not prepared to have our historical rights and our kinship ties, which are local to our communities, derided by an affiliate group that should be an advocacy group that's defined by provincial boundaries.
We have Métis communities across the border, in the United States. When we meet each other, we don't greet each other by saying, “I'm a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta”; we greet each other through our names, our kinship and the historic ties of where we come from.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Often I see witnesses questioned about what specific clause they are concerned about in the bill.
Would you say that you're more opposed to the entire premise of the bill, rather than a specific clause?
5:05 p.m.
President, Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local 2003
We are concerned with the premise of the bill.
With that said, there is a primary issue for us with clause 8, which is with respect to the Métis Nation of Alberta governing our area and our historic community. I think we would be willing to work with the federal government on this bill if we could be consulted. It could be improved if it is refined and some of the central areas of concern addressed.
That is a primary area of concern. There are several. I would say the most central concern would be clause 8 and the arrogation to a provincial non-profit or corporation of what we feel are our community rights.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
That's the end of the time.
For those who are joining us for this panel, I should have mentioned that I have a handy card system. The yellow card means there are 30 seconds left in the round and the red card means the time is up and to finish your thought, but don't stop mid-sentence.
We're going to go now to Mr. Battiste, who will have the next six minutes for questioning.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you for that. My question is for the representatives under AFN.
Several times during this committee, we've heard from first nations that this legislation grants rights. I heard the interim national chief saying the same thing, about granting rights that first nations do not have.
When asking the presidents of the organizations, they all said that this is about internal governance—it's not about land; it's not about resources, and it's not about anything where they would have to go to court.
I've often challenged first nations to show where in the legislation these rights that are being conferred to land or resources exist.
As the advocate group for first nations across Canada, can the national chief or her legal counsel point to the clause in which we grant rights to lands or resources through this legislation?
5:10 p.m.
Interim National Chief, Assembly of First Nations
Yes, I will leave that for the legal counsel for the AFN. We were prepared for that question.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
No, the legislation does not include an explicit reference to land—
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
—or resources. However, it also doesn't explicitly say that this legislation is solely related to internal governance matters either.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
Can I finish my answer, please?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
Thank you.
As you said, you've asked this question several times of first nations, about why they think this involves lands and resources. If you look at it from a first nations perspective, all of our rights—our inherent rights and our governance, most specifically our governance—are tied to our relationship to the land. It seems to be a very colonial, non-indigenous perspective to say, “You can have legislation with respect to the inherent right to self-governance” and then bifurcate that from our land, our resources and our people, because that's where we derive our laws, our rights and our governance from.
Because we weren't consulted in this process, as the national chief said, we are left to question.... Because land is not explicitly written into this legislation and because internal governance is also not explicitly written into this legislation, how will that affect our rights to land?
There's also no provision for resolving any conflicts with existing treaty rights or land rights.
November 28th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I have only five minutes to ask questions.
Would the legal counsel be comfortable...? We have legislation that's currently going through, Bill S-13, which reads:
Every enactment is to be construed as upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not as abrogating or derogating from them.
Would AFN be more comfortable if we inserted that exact language within this legislation to ensure that nothing in this act could abrogate or derogate from first nations' recognized rights?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
The AFN has made written submissions to the committee. If you look at page 20 of our written submissions, we addressed the non-derogation clause.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
It's not a yes-or-no question.
If I'm allowed to elaborate on what I mean, the non-derogation clause alone would act as a reminder that first nations have rights in this case only because of the broad wording of clauses 8 and 9 under “Métis Governments” in Bill C-53. The rights described there are very broadly written, so a non-derogation clause would act only as a reminder that, “Oh yeah, first nations have rights too.”
5:10 p.m.
Senior Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations
A non-derogation clause would not have the intended effect of remedying the issues with Bill C-53. It would also put a burden on first nations, because it would be the first nations who would then have to challenge the legislation in court. As you heard from the interim national chief, first nations already have the tremendous burden of having to prove their rights and get the recognition that this legislation already affords the Métis.