The Métis Settlements in Alberta are arguably the most contemporary Métis communities that exist today as they hold the only recognized land base in Canada. However, most Canadians are not aware that they have a different definition of “Métis” than the Federal Governments go-to organizations. The MSGC does not agree that the Métis Nation of Alberta Association speaks for all Métis in Alberta and it appears that the Federal Government may support that notion.
I would suggest that as you read the below, ask yourself this question: Is there an expectation that when members of a Métis Settlement leave their respective homes to go get the mail in town that they hang their sash and ensure they leave their “Métisness” at the entrance to the Settlement if they don’t hold a plastic MNA card? Once they return to the Settlement entrance, they can get their “identity” back, it will be hanging on a hook. Preposterous!
For the full submission see the document below but pay attention to the following sections:
17. The Métis Settlements and their members have always been collectively represented by MSGC and predecessor bodies such as the Federation and each Settlement Association, not by the Métis Nation of Alberta (“MNA”). MNA is an affiliate of the Métis National Council and became a society in the 1960s, after the Association was incorporated and began advocating for Alberta Métis interests generally.
19, The Framework Agreement commits Canada to working in a government-to-government relationship with MSGC. Specifically, section 2.1.2 identifies a “Shared Principle”:
2.1.2 Recognition of the MSGC as the political governing body of the Métis Settlements, which is separate and apart from the Métis National Council and its affiliates, including the principle that MSGC is the appropriate government to engage with on collaborative policy development that affects the Métis Settlements. [emphasis added]
20. The MNA Self-Government Agreement states that MNA has the exclusive authority to represent and speak on behalf of the “Métis Nation within Alberta” in a number of areas. The definition of “Métis Nation within Alberta” includes all Métis communities in Alberta, including members of the Métis Settlements. The areas of authority set out as being “exclusive” to MNA in fact overlap with areas where Canada has committed to negotiate with MSGC in the Framework Agreement. All this, notwithstanding a clause in the MNA Agreement which expressly states it does not apply to the Settlements or MSGC.
22. On the face of it, and contrary to the principles in Cunningham and the Framework Agreement set out above, Bill C-53 and its Schedule appears to assume that MNA has exclusive authority to represent and speak on behalf of all Métis within Alberta.
23. Bill C-53 therefore appears to position MNA to negotiate a treaty and to develop jurisdictions and create laws in areas that MSGC will also be negotiating with Canada under the Framework Agreement. This sets up a conflict between Canada’s agreements with MNA and with MSGC. At the very least, it creates a confusing and ambiguous statement of the legal and political realities in Alberta. This should be avoided.
24. MSGC states that the following issues are presented by Bill C-53 as presently drafted:
a)it positions MNA to be recognized as the exclusive body to represent Métis in Alberta for the purposes of self-government and treaty-making in order to negotiate a treaty and develop jurisdictions to create laws with binding force in the same areas that MSGC is negotiating with Canada under the Framework Agreement; and
b)it would allow MNA to put a detailed treaty in place without further study or legislative oversight by Parliament, such as by this Standing Committee.
25. This Committee has heard from several witnesses regarding their views on what Bill C-53 is or is not intended to do. It has heard from Métis governments that stand to be recognized under this bill that their recognition under the bill does and should not impact any other nation or people, including other Métis. It has also heard that this bill must allow Métis to build and to thrive; it should not divide us, and it should not have picking winners and losers as its objective, outcome, or unintentional consequence.
28. The Supreme Court also stated in Cunningham at para. 81 that “[t]he Court’s reasons in Powley suggest that Métis communities themselves have a significant role to play” in the exercise of defining ourselves. MSGC agrees. MSGC’s position is that the best solution is one arrived at through discussions as between Métis people themselves, i.e. MNA and MSGC. This approach would also align with the goals expressed in UNDRIP, which Canada has endorsed. MSGC recommends that Bill C-53 should reflect and encourage this goal, rather than rewarding a party that is “first past the post” with exclusivity.
29. Indigenous rights belong to the people and, as Bill C-53 recognizes and the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed many times, such rights are held collectively. In view of this, the collectives which political organizations represent are the holders of Indigenous rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and such collectives should be identified and described in a specific way. For example, in the groundbreaking Powley decision, the Métis of Sault Ste. Marie were recognized as rights holders. The preamble to Bill C-53 itself states that it looks to authorize governments “to act on behalf of the Métis collectivities for which they are the democratic representative bodies”.
30. MSGC agrees with several of the witnesses that have already appeared before this Committee that the time is now to recognize Métis people, communities, and rights. MSGC also commends all of the Métis governments who are striving to attain this goal. In Cunningham, the Supreme Court in fact stated that “[t]he constitutional amendments of 1982 and, in their wake, the enactment of the MSA, signal that the time has finally come for recognition of the Métis as a unique and distinct people.” (para. 70)
31. However, the problematic circumstances of the Metis Settlements and MNA should be reason for this Committee to pause, and ensure that a proper outcome for the Alberta Settlement Métis people is not done away with for the sake of political expediency. There are real families, people, and communities on the land who stand to be affected. Their lands, lives, and rights are at stake. We must get this right.
