Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 45 - Evidence - November 6, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9 a.m. to study the new relationship between Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, tansi. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or listening via the web.
I would like to acknowledge for the sake of reconciliation we are meeting on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. I have the honour and privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Today we are continuing our study on what a new relationship between the Government of Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples could look like. We continue looking forward at the principles of a new relationship.
I will now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We now return our attention to our study. It’s our great pleasure to introduce Mr. Tony Belcourt, Former President of Métis Nation of Ontario.
Mr. Belcourt, you have the floor. After your presentation, the floor will be open to questions from senators. If you would like to proceed.
Tony Belcourt, O.C., Former President, Métis Nation of Ontario, as an individual: Thank you, senators, for inviting me to make a presentation. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the Metis people. In my case, I’m hoping I can help you with the contemporary history.
I first was involved in the 1960s with the Metis Nation of Alberta and became its vice-president. I moved to Ottawa in 1971, as the founding president of the Native Council of Canada, to represent Metis and non-status Indians. That organization is now called Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
After 10 years, we were very successful in 1981 in being named as one of the Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Metis organizations of Western Canada formed the Native Council of Canada. We wanted to be together with non-status Indians to form a lobby for recognition of our rights. The non-status Indians’ preoccupation was dealing with the Indian Act.
At the beginning of the constitutional talks in 1982-1983, the Métis National Council was formed. The Metis of the Native Council of Canada pulled out. The three organizations pulled out because they didn’t feel they were properly represented by a national organization which, at that time, was dominated by non-status Indian people. Their agenda was about their issues. Metis wanted to have their own seat at the table and, in fact, took the Prime Minister to court to do so.
The Metis in Ontario took another decade to follow suit, to pull away. We were in a lobby organization called the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association. In 1993, we formed a committee to form the Métis Nation of Ontario. In 1994, we had our founding delegates assembly. I was the first president and elected a number of times until I retired 15 years later in 2008.
During that time, we were looking with hindsight, with 20/20 vision, and saying to ourselves: We can’t aspire to implement our rights of self-determination if we’re involved in a lobby group or if all we’re going to do is organize another not-for-profit organization. We decided to orient or position ourselves for eventually negotiating a government-to-government relationship with the government for the implementation of our right of self-determination and, therefore, self-government.
The first thing we did was put in place an interim registry. It was based on self-determination and community acceptance, which is an international standard for peoples and communities.
Back in 1993-94, we didn’t have any resources. In fact, the Province of Ontario blocked us from funding for two years for all kinds of spurious reasons. When we started, we had 15 volunteers working out of the attic of my house. That’s how we got going.
We had a definition for Metis then, and we still do. However, it was always our position the definition of Metis does not automatically equate to who may be a Metis citizen. If that’s the only criteria, it automatically blocks or leaves out the potential adoption — for children being adopted and having full rights within the community.
We successfully fought the R. v. Powley case through all the courts in Ontario and to the Supreme Court of Canada. That was the case involving Steve and Roddy Powley and the Metis right to hunt and fish for food.
At trial, we had prepared ourselves. We were in debt, mostly to our lawyers and accountants. We were determined we were going to support Steve, that he was going to have the best representation, and that we were going to have the best evidence put at trial to support our argument for the right to hunt and fish for food.
The court determined that in 1850, when the Metis at Sault Ste. Marie had gone to the treaty negotiations that were set up when Mr. Robinson was first sent there. He said had he a mandate for the full bloods but not the half-breeds, and if they wanted to share their presents with the half-breeds, that was up to them.
The court determined on that basis, the Metis were not involved in the treaty; their rights were not extinguished. Therefore, there was still an existing right to hunt and fish for food.
That case is fundamental to now the government needing to respond to the Metis people, that and the Daniels case.
They are different issues. One is: Are our constitutional rights still existing? That’s one thing. The other: Does the federal government have jurisdictional responsibility to legislate for the Metis people? That’s the Daniels case.
When I came to Ottawa in 1971, we were stiff-armed by the federal government. They said go see the province because we don’t have jurisdiction for you or any responsibility for the Metis. Well, the Daniels case has cleared that all up.
As we go forward, there are a number of things that need to be done, both for Metis people who have collective rights, but also for individuals. I’ll come to that.
We want to pursue our right to self-government. However, sadly, in the case of the Métis Nation of Ontario, we’re nowhere near being ready to enter into self-government negotiations. There have been people who have come in after we started. Many are not familiar because they were never there with what we were trying to do at the beginning.
We set out a statement of prime purpose setting out what our values are and what our aspirations are as a people. We said yes, democracy is very important. More important to us is decision-making by consensus. Lately that’s gone by the wayside. It’s now whoever can get one vote more than the other.
We, in our statement of prime purpose, set out our aspirations or our values for respect of one another. That, unfortunately, is also going by the wayside. I don’t know the reason, perhaps it’s money. There’s a lot of it on the table. It’s really attractive to be elected now, to be on an executive and get a big full-time salary. The preoccupation of people is to protect themselves; that’s a natural thing.
I’m sorry to say there is no room in the Metis nation for dissent. It’s possible to completely disregard law. The Métis Nation of Ontario set up Bill 153 under the laws of Ontario. That law is very clear that no elected person can be removed unless it’s by the people who put them in.
Just last weekend the Provisional Council, the provincial organization, passed a resolution to remove three elected regional councillors, just by motion at a meeting. There is no appeal process. The appeal process is to the people who made the decision. In any future negotiations on self-government, there must definitely be a provision for an appeal process by a tribunal to arbitrate disputes.
The rights of all of the citizens need to be assured, even those who joined at the beginning in 1994. For 10 years the definition and criteria for who may be a citizen remained the same. Now it’s changed because of Powley.
The attitude now for citizenship is you have to meet the test in Powley. That’s wrong. First of all, it’s wrong to be taking away vested rights of people. They should be respected. If you’re going to change the rules, at least respect the people who got the organization going and off the ground.
In the Metis nation, many people don’t belong. They haven’t joined. In fact, some people have removed themselves because they don’t support what’s going on. They may stay out of the picture unless things drastically change.
The federal government nevertheless has a responsibility to Aboriginal peoples of Canada under 91(24). Therefore, in the future, not only should there be continuing negotiations for self-government — and I firmly believe in that — but there needs to be a provision for the federal government and all governments dealing with vested interest groups, special interest groups — artists, for example, people who are in education or childcare organizations and so on.
The Métis Nation of Ontario effectively delivers programs and services. There’s no question about it. It could be a heck of a lot more effective if it were up to the Métis Nation of Ontario to determine the criteria on who may access those resources. When you apply government criteria, a lot of people fall through the cracks.
I’m going to leave it there because I’d rather you ask questions. You invited me to come. I very much appreciate it. There is some art in this room that is missing, and that’s art by Christi Belcourt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Belcourt.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for being with us today. Some of the history you’re sharing is extremely helpful to me to put some of the testimony we’ve received in a larger context.
I want to make sure I’ve understood one of the points I think you were making with us today. I’d like to ask you to correct me if I don’t have this well understood.
As I was listening to you, it seemed to me you were conveying a message to us that there are issues internally within the self-governance of the Metis nation that you feel are hampering the progress to reach the goals set out in the statement that you referenced.
Do we have a copy of that statement of purpose? We do. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Belcourt: I have one here.
Senator McPhedran: The chair says yes, we have it.
The Chair: No, we don’t. I don’t think we have. If you could provide us copies, that would be very useful.
Mr. Belcourt: I only have one copy, unfortunately.
The Chair: If the committee agrees, we could have it copied and circulated. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are you finished, Senator McPhedran?
Senator McPhedran: No, not quite.
What I was taking away from what you were saying — but I really need to check in with you, Mr. Belcourt — is the self-governance issues are creating a situation where moving ahead with, for example, land claims is undermined.
This is a really critical point. I want to make sure I understood the point from your perspective.
Mr. Belcourt: There are some other things that are subtly undermining our abilities. We had an annual assembly in August, which I attended. The Métis Nation of Ontario is doing a review of all of its citizens, now saying that everybody must be rights-bearing. I wanted to know if that is because this is coming from the federal government. I asked the president that question at the meeting — it’s on record — and she said, “Yes, it is, because the government wants to be dealing only with rights-bearing people.”
I recently had a meeting with Minister Carolyn Bennett. I asked her about that. She said, “No, I’ve never said that’s an issue.” There is a disconnect there.
The citizenship in the Métis Nation of Ontario or who gets to belong has never ever been dependent on jurisprudence from someplace else. These are decisions we make on our own. Why should we be forced now? The Powley case was a good one. There’s a flaw in Powley: it’s putting the onus on individuals to prove they have a right, which is wrong. If you have collective rights, the rights belong to the collective. It’s up to the collective to determine who enjoys those rights. That’s the big flaw in Powley that needs to be changed.
Currently, somehow our people are seeming to have to adopt the Powley decision and the test in Powley as the litmus test for who may be a citizen. That’s not right.
Senator McPhedran: Could I clarify that your comments are directed to the Ontario Metis governance organization and not to the national?
Mr. Belcourt: It’s both. The Métis National Council is governed by a board of governor of five people and an elected president who are elected by a group of 55 delegates to an assembly. That’s hardly participation by citizens in deciding who the leadership is.
The leadership is very rigid about a definition of Metis being the only criteria for who may be a citizen. I don’t disagree with the definition of Metis — the Metis are Metis — but that’s an issue at the national level. I think the issues of negotiation on self-determination and self-government should be at the community level. There should be community involvement and participation in the discussions and negotiations.
Before I forget, my father would really be disappointed if I didn’t mention that in the future, in terms of a new relationship, number one on the agenda has to be land. Now, in many places, we can’t reclaim the land that’s there. There can be compensation in lieu of land. Communal lands have to be set aside for use by Metis people for community, ceremonial and cultural purposes. Our people should be involved in land management where it concerns the environment and wildlife.
Senator Christmas: It’s an honour to meet you, Mr. Belcourt.
You referenced a couple of times in your comments there are things to be done. You’ve mentioned specifically these things include Metis as a collective and Metis as individuals. Can you elaborate on what you mean by those comments?
Mr. Belcourt: If a Metis person is not registered with the Métis Nation of Ontario, they’re not automatically eligible to access funds or go through the Métis Nation of Ontario for job training, for example, or secondary school assistance.
Whatever is done has to take into account the reality that not all Metis people are going to be members of the provincial group.
Senator Christmas: If an individual is not registered, then they’re no longer eligible for certain programs, but does that mean they are no longer Metis?
Mr. Belcourt: No. Of course not. Canada provides funds for training in many ways. One of the ways is it gives a block of funds to the Métis Nation of Ontario to manage. If a Metis person can’t access that because they’re not a member or citizen in the Métis Nation, they should be able to access it otherwise. That’s what I’m saying. There should be some thinking about how that should be done.
I know it’s not only Metis people that are affected this way; First Nations people are as well.
Senator Christmas: I have one more question. Sir, you mentioned in the Powley case you thought there was a flaw, which is that the onus was on the individual to prove that they are Metis. Could you elaborate on how you think Metis should be recognized?
Mr. Belcourt: Metis come from Metis communities. In Ontario, some of those communities do not meet the test in Powley because they can’t establish that they existed prior to outside control, which is another aspect of the decision in Powley. It isn’t that they may not some day be able to prove it; it’s that the research has not been done and so on. The research is continuing.
In Ontario, there are, I believe, seven geographic areas in the province where the Government of Ontario agrees those communities meet the test in Powley. There is the recognition of the right to hunt and fish for food in those territories. In some of these other areas, mostly in the North Bay, Nipissing and French River area of Ontario, they still haven’t been able to — first of all, the communities are there. There’s absolutely no question about it. They have always been there. But can they prove they meet the test in Powley?
If they can’t, why should that bar those communities or people from full participation in the Metis nation or being able to access funding that should be set aside for Metis people?
I don’t know if I answered your question or muddied the water.
The Chair: I wonder if you could put on the record a little more detail with regard to what the Powley decision was so we have it on record. Some of us are newer on the committee and we may not really understand the Powley decision.
Mr. Belcourt: Sure. Steve and Roddy Powley, father and son — Steve has unfortunately passed on — were out hunting moose. For many Metis and First Nations families, harvesting wildlife is not only important economically so they have food for the winter. It’s also very much a need of our diet.
Our people are not sport hunters. They don’t apply for tags. If they do, inevitably they will never get a moose tag for a cow or a bull. They will just get a calf tag; Ontario gives out 17,000 of them a year.
People go out and hunt and what they do is hide the meat and they’ll go back at night and bring the meat out. Steve decided he wasn’t going to do that any more. He said, “I’m Metis. We have rights. They’re in the Constitution.” He put his moose on top of the truck and drove right in front of the Ministry of Natural Resources. He went home and he hung the moose, and the ministry charged him with illegal hunting of moose.
Steve was a very determined — some would say stubborn — person. We knew Steve was not going to do what all people do all the time, and he said he wasn’t going to do, which is go to court, pay a fine and then go back to do it again. He said no. We knew he was going to fight it in court. We knew if he lost at trial he would appeal. We knew that.
We were just starting the Métis Nation of Ontario but we have been around for a long time. We knew there is nothing worse for us than bad law. We engaged the firm of Pape and Salter. I knew Rick Salter back in the 1970s when he was working for the Company of Young Canadians. That firm had gone many times to the Supreme Court on First Nations issues and been very successful. They knew their law. We had to prepare the case to say that, first of all, we’re talking about the constitutional right of a collective to hunt and fish for food, just as the constitutional right was established for fishing for First Nations, for example, the first one at the Supreme Court.
We needed to establish a existence of a community because the Constitution Act, in section 35, states that the existing rights of the Aboriginal peoples are hereby recognized, we knew we had to deal with that word “existing.” We needed to establish the community Steve was from, at Sault Ste. Marie, existed prior to outside control and prior to Mr. Robinson coming up there to make a treaty. That was a relatively easy thing to do. We needed to prove continuity that the community still exists today, that it is the same community that existed back then.
When we got the trial, the Ontario position was there were no Metis in Ontario, there never were and if you find there are, these aren’t Metis that might have existed at one time. If you do find that is the case, those Metis never exercised rights. If you found they had rights, they were extinguished. That was what that was all about.
When the Supreme Court decision came down, it was that the community did exist, the rights were not extinguished and Steve Powley established he is a citizen of that community.
What I’m saying is the flaw is it shouldn’t be up to Steve to prove that he has a right. It’s the obligation of the community.
Another thing about the Supreme Court decision is this: If governments have a question as to whether or not a right exists, the onus is on the government to prove that it doesn’t. It is not the other way around. We’re not following what has been decided by the Supreme Court.
The Chair: Thank you for that explanation.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to go back to section 35. My question is about the health rights of the Metis people. It’s not the insured services that all Canadians have; I’m talking about the non-insured, which are available to treaty. What is your understanding about what those rights are?
Mr. Belcourt: Well, I don’t think government is in a position to be able to discriminate against the Aboriginal peoples by saying it is going to provide services to one group and not provide it to the other.
The federal government has been able to do that because up to the Daniels case, it always said we don’t have the responsibility or the jurisdiction. Well, that’s now been settled. The Government of Canada must initiate ways to be providing non-insured health benefits to the Metis people the same way it does to First Nations and Inuit.
Senator McCallum: I’ve brought this up before with the ministers and they said it’s a provincial responsibility. It can’t be because non-insured is federal. These are not rights determined by the province.
What would you recommend we do to help you move forward with the provision of the non-insured services for the Metis nation?
Mr. Belcourt: I’m not here representing the Métis Nation of Ontario. I’m here as an individual.
Senator McCallum: I know; for the Metis people?
Mr. Belcourt: This should be on the agenda of the new relationship discussions that are going on with the Métis Nation of Ontario and the province. That’s where this discussion should take place.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: We’re privileged today to have a veteran Aboriginal leader here to assist us in our work. Welcome, Mr. Belcourt.
We’ve heard about the importance of land to the Metis and you mentioned that today.
With perhaps an exception in the Northwest Territories, where the Metis did participate in a comprehensive land claim agreement in principle that was unfortunately rejected around the time of the Oka Crisis and not put to a vote of beneficiaries, Metis have been excluded from participating in the comprehensive land claims processes. Professor Larry Chartrand has spoken to our committee about that. He recommended there needs to be alternative processes for which Metis can participate in resolving their claims and having their rights recognized.
Mr. Belcourt, you said you had some discussions with Minister Bennett. The current federal government has initiated a new distinctions-based policy on the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights. As I understand that rights framework, highlighted by the Prime Minister when it was first announced, would be developed to replace the comprehensive land claims and inherent right policies now in place. I would like to ask Mr. Belcourt about this Indigenous rights recognition, the new framework. Is this a process that could help define and recognize Metis rights? How is that going, in your view?
Mr. Belcourt: I’ve been inactive in the Métis Nation of Ontario for eight years now. I only just started getting actively involved again because of my concerns about the Métis Nation of Ontario going off the rails. I’m afraid I’m not fully aware of all of the distinction-based principles in this new framework.
Where land is concerned, to me it’s pretty straightforward. Canada is still governed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It requires an agreement with the Indigenous peoples to be able to occupy their lands and move into their territories. We proved, in Sault Ste. Marie, that that didn’t happen. That case is clear. The onus is on the government to negotiate on the basis of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
In Western Canada, the Manitoba land claims case concerned the lands in the small part of the current-day province that was Manitoba at the time on the Red River, that 70-mile stretch from the U.S. border to the lake and around all of those communities.
The lands were swindled away. Lands that were constitutionally to be provided under the Manitoba Act, sections 31 and 32, to be provided for the “children of the half-breeds” — in order words, building upon the future — those lands were never provided. Now there are negotiations going on there.
Outside of Manitoba, on the Prairies, Metis were never dealt with in treaty. We were always refused. I know in my community of Lac Ste. Anne, when representatives from our place went there, the commissioners said we don’t have a mandate to have a treaty with you.
There has never been a treaty with the Metis people on the Prairies. Instead, what the government did in 1885 was unilaterally decide they were going to issue a thing called “scrip” that would be given to Metis people. They called the Metis people to come to these tents where these commissioners were, and they did interviews. I’m sorry, I didn’t bring the copy of my great-great-grandmother’s interview. She was 92 at the time she was interviewed in 1885. That interview, as all of them, was a questionnaire — What is your name? Where were you born? When were you born? Who did you marry? When did you marry? Did you have any children? How many children are still alive? How many died? What are their names? — and so on, in 1885. Then they gave her a form to sign for her X. They put her X on a form and had witnesses. Then they issued her a piece of paper that was to be exchanged for $160. Some people got a piece of paper to be exchanged for 160 acres of land somewhere, 300, 400 or 500 miles away. How is that fulfilling an obligation to enter into an agreement with the people? It was never attempted. With that issuance of scrip, I think the federal government thought at the time they were dealing with their responsibilities with the Metis people.
They have not. That did not extinguish the rights of our people. By the way, the government issued scrip to anyone, not just the Metis people. Under the Dominion Lands Act, they issued all kinds of permits for land everywhere.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Mr. Belcourt, for joining us. I have two questions — one a macro. If there’s anything else besides what you have recommended to us so far that you would recommend this committee take note of or that we might be able to do to assist in terms of the nation-to-nation relationship for Metis people in this country. I would appreciate hearing that.
On a micro level, one of the areas I continue to work in a lot is with individuals who have been marginalized, victimized, criminalized and imprisoned.
As you may be aware, the rate of incarceration of Indigenous peoples, including Metis people, has continued to grow astronomically, particularly for women; yet there is a new bill that has just been introduced that, as I heard you speak, I suddenly realized it may have an even more profound effect for Metis and Inuit people than First Nations.
One of the provisions that currently exists in the corrections legislation allows communities to apply to the Minister of Public Safety to have members of their community serve their sentence or be paroled into their communities under sections 81 and 84.
Bill C-83 that has just been introduced and gone to committee in the House of Commons will take out the word “community,” and requires that negotiations be with governing councils and bodies. By taking out “community,” am I correct in thinking this may have a particular effect on Metis communities who may not have the same structure as some of the First Nations communities and reserves in terms of negotiating those contracts? If so, where could I get more information to inform myself about that to more accurately challenge what those changes may mean for Metis people and communities?
Mr. Belcourt: Again, when we set up the Métis Nation of Ontario, one of the things we wanted to do is provide for governance at the local level. We established community councils. We entered into agreements with those community councils so they would have responsibility at the local level for many things.
The community councils are still there. I know that in Ontario, it’s set up a certain way. Manitoba and so on, they all have community councils, maybe different names, but we do have councils at the community level to be able to negotiate with.
On a macro-level, I think there is only one other thing I believe is critically important and that is before any agreements are entered into, self-government agreements, there needs to be a referendum with the people. The people have to agree to this. As I said in my opening remarks, we’re a long way from having self-government.
There’s another thing I want to say: Metis communities and Metis people have had provisional governments, particularly on the Prairies. We had governments for the hunt. Captains of the hunt were appointed to ensure the hunt went off successfully, because if it didn’t, that could be devastating for the winter. In Ontario, we established captains of the hunt. We have a harvesting policy that governs captains of the hunt.
First of all, we never completed what we started in terms of the registry, an interim registry policy. We were going to establish a permanent registry policy when we would be in a position to deal with the issue of community acceptance. We never did that. We didn’t have the resources to have those discussions.
How does community acceptance take place? How is that done? Right now, it’s dictated by the provincial organization. There’s no discussion about community acceptance. That has to change.
There is no provision or allowance for dissent, expect at an annual assembly. Once a year, you can go to a meeting and protest about something, but the provincial governing body makes all the decisions.
What’s happening — it happened last weekend — is if you are dissenting and not going along with what the executive wants, you get turfed, even though you have been elected at ballot box elections within your region. That’s the other thing we put in place, by the way, ballot box elections for the community councils, the regional councillors and the provincial executive.
There is no dispute resolution mechanism. We’ve dealt with these things in our communities, because families are the ones that made the decisions along these lines. At the community level, we decided who belonged, who was going to be in that burial ground. Those were our community decisions. No one but us and our families made those kinds of decisions for us. We didn’t have tribunals or court systems or anything. We had communities and our families decide amongst themselves what was wrong and how to correct it. We had laws of the prairie.
I’m sorry, I did not have the opportunity to prepare a full brief before coming to this committee. My intention is to prepare one and to provide you with some of the things I’m talking about, as appendices. You’ll have that kind of documentation.
The Chair: Thank you. We would appreciate that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Belcourt. I followed your career over the years with great admiration. You’re quite a leader, and we’re honoured to have you here with us.
I can hear the frustration at this stage in your leadership at the state of affairs in terms of the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Metis people. Also, as I’m understanding it — and I may not fully be getting it, I’m sure — frustration with some of the legitimacy you’re seeing being ascribed to the governance within the Metis Nation itself, both here in Ontario and at the national level. Is that fair so far on that?
I know you come from the West. I know Metis communities in the West, which I have visited, even flown into those small communities, are very distinctive and quite different in some aspects from the Metis communities in some other parts of Canada, particularly Ontario. I don’t purport to be an expert on that.
I’m curious about the urban-rural division of the population base and whether the mobility of the population or other demographic factors are affecting some of the things you’re referring to on the legitimacy in governance issues that you’re bringing up, or whether maybe that’s a red herring.
Mr. Belcourt: I don’t see that there is a difference. In many of our communities, towns and cities grew up around or engulfed them. The Metis community of Mattawa, there is a town there now. The same in North Bayand everywhere around the Prairies.
We have councils in urban areas as well. Obviously, they’re not going to be dealing with land or community-based issues. They deal with delivery of programs and services, and participate in policy decision-making when that opportunity comes. There is not a rural-urban issue with us.
The more rural communities, the settlements in Alberta for example, there are six Metis settlements there. They’re quite rural oriented. They have councils just like the council at one of the nearby communities.
Senator Coyle: To finish this point: I don’t have any statistics in front of me. I probably should have done some further research. I don’t know what’s happening in general with the Metis population in Canada. Is there an urbanizing phenomenon there with the overall population of Metis people? Are people moving from rural settlements into urban areas where, yes, they are organized? I’m curious about what’s going on there.
Mr. Belcourt: I think urbanization of the Metis people took place mostly in the 1960s and 1970s. People were wanting to come to a place where they might be able to get a job, get a house, only to find they couldn’t do either very easily back in those days.
I don’t sense there is a move to urbanization in the same way it was 50 years ago.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee I would like to thank you, Mr. Belcourt, for appearing today and sharing with us your wisdom from many decades of leadership within the Metis communities.
We will wait for our second witness, who had problems with her vehicle. She is on her way. Thank you.
We are continuing our study on what a new relationship between the government and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples in Canada could look like.
We now have before us Ms. Ellen Gabriel, an Indigenous Human Rights Defender, who will present.
After your presentation, Ms. Gabriel, there will be questions from the senators. The floor is yours if you would like to begin.
Ellen Gabriel, Indigenous Human Rights Defender, as an individual: [Editor’s Note: Ms. Gabriel spoke in her Indigenous language.]
I greet you in my language and I thank you for inviting me today. My Mohawk name is Katsi’tsakwas. I am Turtle Clan from the community of Kanehsatà:ke, which you know as Oka.
I thank all the natural life forces for allowing me to be here today. With all the challenges I’ve had this morning, it’s nice to be sitting in a room.
When I looked at your questions and the kind of relationship that we’re looking for, I think about my community and the 300-year-old struggle we have had with settlers and how the doctrine of superiority, like the doctrine of discovery, continues to impact our community and our nations.
As I’m sure other people have told you, one of the things is the repudiation of the doctrine of discovery and terra nullius. It is Louis XIV, the Sun King, who granted the Seminary of Saint Sulpice a land grant on the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee.
Today, Canada continues to accept the version of history the Seminary of Saint Sulpice has spun in order to dispossess us and continue to dispossess us. It is the reason why the so-called Oka Crisis happened. It is the reason why we continue to experience conflict in the very small community of Kanehsatà:ke.
We are the oldest community in existence. We were there before Europeans came. We are part of the Iroquois Confederacy, which survived colonialism. We exist today. It is that traditional governance that was outlawed by Canada in 1924 when Deskaheh had gone to the League of Nations to plead with the nations of the world to accept the Haudenosaunee as part of the League of Nations. He was laughed at and scorned by Canada, the U.S. and Britain. Today we are still feeling that scorn.
We still feel the impacts of land dispossession. We are criminalized. If Canada wants to have a nation-to-nation relationship, it cannot be with the colonially imposed structures that they have created, which is the band councils. It must deal with the traditional governments. While I recognize every single person of the Kanehsatà:ke nation is a rights holder, I have to impress upon you the extent to which Canada — and even this current government, which claims they want nation-to-nation — has gone to exclude the Haudenosaunee people from any kind of discussions — not even granting us a meeting.
It is not enough for the government, the Minister of Indian Affairs or bureaucrats to call me and say, “The minister wants to meet you,” and the next week they say, “She can’t meet with you today. How about another week?” That is not upholding the honour of the Crown. I am a rights holder. As the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says, we have a right to choose whatever political status we have as peoples with that right to self-determination.
What does a peaceful coexistence mean? A peaceful coexistence that there is no conflict in existence; that there is peace.
While reconciliation is purportedly going on in Canada, it has yet to reach my community and many Indigenous communities.
Reconciliation will be and is uncomfortable. Reconciliation requires restitution for all the negative impacts that colonial laws and doctrines of superiority have inflicted upon our people. Colonial-rooted poverty, murder and missing Indigenous women, a low quality of education in our communities, the lack of access to good water, all these are colonial-rooted problems and neglect for many decades.
Canada needs to uphold its human rights obligations. It applies to the human rights of Indigenous people whether they be collective or individual. It applies to us as peoples who are the First Peoples of this land.
We did not come over from the Bering Strait, not according to our oral history. We are from this land. Our DNA is splattered with the genes of this environment, of this land. We are the original peoples. We are not the first to colonialize this part of Turtle Island; we are part of Turtle Island.
What would it take to restore our nations? It would take the bureaucrats letting go of their policies. It would take the Treasury Board letting go and giving us access to those funds that will help uplift the languages and cultures that were destroyed in the Indian residential school system and which UNESCO has said are the most threatened in the world in Canada.
It would require us to have the human resources to be able to incorporate traditional customary laws with the times that the people are living in. We don’t want to be just service providers and then Canada can wash its hands clean and say, “Here is the money for education. Here is the money for whatever.” We don’t want to have fee simple in our communities. That will cause further land dispossession. We don’t want bureaucrats dictating to our communities, and financial agreements of how our money — not Canada’s money but our money — is going to be spent in restoring and reinstituting the nationhood identity — the pillars that allowed the first settlers to come here and survive on this beautiful land.
What is nationhood? In the Haudenosaunee laws and customs, our spiritual, physical and political are all intertwined. We have many words for the state of the mind of a person.
What I said to you in my opening is to find a way we can bring our minds together in peace. That’s not happening right now.
We, as the First Peoples of this land, must always go under colonial laws and policies. Canada needs to let that go. Canada needs to respect our rights as human beings. That’s what we are, human beings.
We are not an industry for Justice, Health or any other department in Canada to continue to create jobs. We are not the kind of people that would allow destruction of Mother Earth so pipelines can go ahead.
What we want is healthy nations just like yours. We are people who, as consumers, want to have sustainable energy for our communities. We can barely get potable water. How are we supposed to get the kinds of energy that people are talking about when addressing climate change?
We need to have our history and realities put in every single part of the educational system. Every single lawyer at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has said, and every social worker, teacher, member of Parliament, province and territory needs to understand the colonial history of Canada.
Get uncomfortable. We want you to be uncomfortable so you can get with us, because that’s where we are. We are on our homelands, and we are uncomfortable. We see nothing that reflects our traditional territories and homelands. We continue to fight, and as we fight, we exist just to survive. That is not living.
What can it be that will change the minds of Canada? You need to tell your bureaucrats and teach them about human rights.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples needs to be implemented and embedded in the minds and hearts of all the bureaucrats who are working on Indigenous issues, and even those who are not. As the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People James Anaya said, one of the biggest challenges and one of the biggest walls preventing Indigenous peoples from enjoying their human rights is racism.
It is about racism and how you combat racism. When I was younger, I used to see posters from Canada talking about fighting racism. Well, we’re not even close to that, are we?
We have brothers and sisters, our nations, who live south of the border and are living under — I don’t know what we can call it. I don’t think there is a name for it. They are being erased from history.
It would be a sad thing for Canadians to erase from history their true foundations of colonialism. How else can we learn from the past? How are we going to progress into the future? Canadians and, in particular the province where I come from, the Quebecois, they need to learn they have also been part of the destruction of Indigenous peoples’ languages and cultures, our health and well-being.
We don’t want to be involved in a French and English war. We’ve had enough wars to last us many generations. But I want you to think of a trauma-informed way of dealing with human rights.
Colonialism has taught us three things: don’t speak, don’t tell, don’t trust. How do we move past that?
Canada has benefited greatly from the divisions in our communities. They say to us, “You all have to speak with one voice.” Yet how many of you here are from different parties? Does Canada really speak with one voice? That has been the excuse for Canada not to deal with the long-standing historical grievances that we, in particular in Kanehsatà:ke, have been facing.
There is no excuse for the violations of our rights, no excuse. We have to tolerate that. We have to make the protests to people aware of what is going on. Then the public says, “Okay, what else are they complaining about?”
What would you do if your rights were being trampled on? What would you do if you had to speak another language in order to succeed in education, in order to get a job? And even when you learn that language, your level of fluency is not good enough. There are always excuses to be made. Deep down you know it is about racism.
How are you going to deal with it, Canada? What are you going to do for Kanehsatà:ke, who should be the example of reconciliation in Canada? Canada could have resolved those land issues in 1990. They chose not to.
We were promised by the then Minister of Indian Affairs. We were promised Canada would never ever deal with the Longhouse people.
We as the longhouse people are the inspiration for the U.S. democracy. They even use our symbols of the eagle with the talons holding those arrows; united. We’re living in very troubled times. Because of that, our issues always get put down on the bottom rung of what our priorities are.
Please, I ask you as a senate committee to use what influence you have in changing the injustices that have gone on. Encourage your constituents, government, municipalities, provinces and territories to, one, understand their own colonial history; and two, implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in every aspect.
I will end it there. I think there’s more to discuss. I will be open for questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gabriel.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for being with us. I want to acknowledge the tremendous impact you had in Winnipeg, Manitoba, when you were our keynote speaker at the Institute for International Women’s Rights, and how powerfully you helped us understand the role of language and culture. I think we’ve heard some of that in what you’ve presented today.
We have also heard a lot about broken, unkept promises.
If I may ask, if you have had a chance to look at the rights, reconciliation framework, that has been proposed and if you had any specific comments you wanted to share with us.
Ms. Gabriel: I attended one meeting in August and I asked I think it was the deputy minister, Joe Wild. I said, “You’re talking about this as an option to opt out of the Indian Act, but you’re still granting the authority to the colonial-created structure of the band council. You’re not even including again the traditional governments of the Longhouse, the Haudenosaunee, people.” His answer was just, “It’s just an opt-out.” What we see is the municipalization of our communities. They’re not looking at us as nations. They’re looking at us as being the service providers, bringing our bylaws, whatever bylaws, for so-called self-government that they will be in harmony with the local municipalities. They are not allowing us to say, “Okay, we’re going to include our customary laws.”
You cannot develop here no matter what. You cannot build here because we as Haudenosaunee people, we’re horticulturists, we’re agriculturists, we hunt and we fish. We cannot hunt and fish anymore; the St. Lawrence is too polluted.
We’re not asking for Canada to recognize our rights. We don’t need Canada’s recognition. We have inherent rights. We want Canada to respect our rights, to be honourable. I don’t see any part of that in the rights and recognition. I think a lot of other Indigenous people would agree.
Senator McPhedran: One additional concern that has been expressed about pretty much I think all of the processes that have been going on is the inclusion of women leaders. I wondered if you might have any comments for us on that. For example, the Native Women’s Association of Canada was excluded as a full participant in rounds of negotiations again, which has happened as you know many times. If you could share with us your sense of — I don’t want to presume the answer — what would be optimal in terms of women leaders and ongoing negotiations.
Ms. Gabriel: I’ll go back to being a Haudenosaunee person.
The land is vested in the women. Yet the women have been excluded. The band council system was designed and created to uphold male leadership. It is only in recent times that women have become councillors. Maybe a few become a grand chief, but again it is an elected system. It is extremely flawed. It needs to start all over. We can’t look at the current model and say we’ll put gender equity in it because the current model is flawed.
We need to go nation to nation. We need to ensure that women have an equal representation and an equal voice in any and all discussions. Those new models for discussions and negotiations are done by Indigenous people, for Indigenous people.
What I saw, and we can see that at the UN as well, it is mostly men making decisions. It doesn’t matter how educated a woman gets. They will never rise to that level and they have not risen to that level and it applies to Indigenous women as well. We have to get rid of this Indian Act system and perhaps use the foundations of those traditional governments that were truly democratic, that truly provide equality and equity for every single citizen.
It wasn’t just the Native Women’s Association of Canada that was excluded. It was also representatives, clan mothers, of the Haudenosaunee people. This is another example of Canada not respecting our rights and our right to self determination.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Ms. Gabriel, very powerful presentation, which is what I was hoping for. Yes, I am feeling uncomfortable, which is what you’re asking all of us to feel.
I’m curious: You have been at this work for a long time and, yes, I salute you and your leadership and tenacity. I’m really curious. We here are looking at the new relationship between Canada and First Nations; that’s what this study is about. We’re hearing noises that sound more respectful, sound like they are addressing colonialism, sound like they, we, are committed to reconciliation.
I’d be curious, have you seen any glimpses of improvements in any areas between Canada and your nation or other nations here in Canada? Any glimpses of improvements or any sliding back in the other direction you want to call to our attention? I’m just curious. From your observation, some examples would be very helpful.
Ms. Gabriel: I don’t think the status quo has changed too much. There’s a lot of talk. There’s no actions behind that talk. There’s new policies. We still continue to have many challenges in regard to the revitalization of our languages. There’s still land dispossession that continues. As I said, in Kanehsatà:ke, the government continues to meddle in the divisions and say, “Well, you have to go.” We were given a letter that was not even signed by Mr. Joe Wild but an underling to say, “If you have any complaints, take them up with your band council.”
As I explained, in 1924 when they outlawed the Confederacy and tried to dismantle that traditional government, they have done nothing in recent times to this very second that changes what happened in 1924. It’s a lot of, “Well, this is what works today. This is the kind of bylaws that you should have. You were having self-government. You will be service providers and you will be self controlling all your things.”
Meanwhile, our land base is shrinking while our population is growing. We don’t have enough homes for people in many communities. What we see in regard to the cigarette trade and now in more recent times the marijuana issue is people taking it upon themselves because of the restrictions of the Indian Act. If I want to get a loan for a business, if a Québécois had the same business as me, I would not get a loan because that Québécois comes before me.
The issue of language, the issue of mechanisms for dispute have not changed. They are based on the colonial bureaucracy. There was nothing that reflects our ways and protocols. Those customary ways and protocols need to be respected. When we sit and talk, we should not be talking with people who can’t make decisions. A lot of times we go to meetings and we talk about the issues like in Kanehsatà:ke and the people will just be writing notes. I’ve been in meetings where there are five Indigenous people and 30 bureaucrats, not one of whom can answer any of our questions. We come to places like this and we want more hope because we look at you as having at least some influence. It’s always delayed. Justice has always been delayed to this very day. If Canada has not repudiated the doctrine of discovery yet, then it can continue to justify the land dispossession and the colonial-rooted poverty we have. It can continue to put Band-Aids on really large social problems.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your powerful presentation. I wanted to go back to your statement, we just don’t want to be service providers.
I agree with that. I’ve been a health professional with my band for 45 years. I worked on my reserve with the chief and council who were there in all their areas.
Inadequate resources keep people in crisis. They’re unable to see beyond the crisis and step towards self-determination as a first step. What would you recommend to help us move into the direction of self-government? What would be your recommendations?
Ms. Gabriel: I don’t think we have enough time.
Senator McCallum: If you could write something for us so it’s more complete and submit it, would that be better?
Ms. Gabriel: I think part of it is because we lack the financial resources for the human resources. As one elder put it, it took us over 150 years to get us to this point. We can’t expect one government to resolve the issues. It will take at least another century of commitment from Canada — a sincere act of reconciliation and restitution.
If our schools are totally inadequate, as the former Auditor General Sheila Fraser said, it would take 28 years for community schools to catch up with the quality of education in other schools. If we’re looking at the social problems and the limitations that Canada imposes upon on our social and economic rights, then we won’t be able to move forward. Moving forward means we sit and have an honest discussion. For us in our Great Law — it’s peace, love, strength and respect. If those things are missing and people are only talking at us and they think they know what’s best for us, we’re going to have another 150 years of spinning our wheels.
Our people need the help now and they’re not getting it. Our families are being torn apart. They were torn part in the Indian residential school system. We have more children in the child welfare system. We had the woman who advocated on behalf of Indigenous families and children being criminalized by the Government of Canada. What does that say about Canada? It’s been hidden from the public. We need to have the truth be told. The media needs to step up to the plate to help sensitize that because they are an important part of the culture of Canada. If they are not doing that, then they are promoting the racism we feel every single day as Indigenous people.
We want our land back. We want our land back absolutely and unequivocally. We need to stop the crazy development, whether it’s condominium development, mining or pipelines. We need to protect our land and environment for the future generations and for this generation, those babies who haven’t had a chance to enjoy it.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, Ms. Gabriel, for your leadership. I join the chorus of folks here and thank you for overcoming amazing obstacles today — your entire life — to get here to join us.
I was struck by one of the things you said which was you hope it’s worthwhile. I hope so too. I share the discomfort many of us have and invite you to make us even more uncomfortable about any more of the key recommendations and actions we could be trying to undertake as part of this committee. You have said a lot. I’m not suggesting I didn’t hear. If there is anything else we could concretely do to assist that process given the mandate and responsibility of this committee. How do we push this committee mandate in a more progressive way?
Ms. Gabriel: I will start off with what might seem like a simple thing, which is the implementation, helping this Senate committee to pass the UN declaration, the Private Member’s Bill C-262 to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not UNDRIP, the U-N DRIP. As well to hold accountable the Saint-Sulpice Seminary for the land fraud they and Canada colluded together to dispossess the Kanehsatà:ke followers of Kanien’kehá:ka Nation to look into that story that continues to exclude the Haudenosaunee from any kind of land discussions. Even meetings with ministers, like the minister there today.
She told me last year at a celebration of the UN declaration’s anniversary if I didn’t like how I was being treated, if I didn’t like the fact we were being excluded, that I can take it to the courts. The courts are very costly, even just to get at the provincial level is very costly. They need to respect us. They need to look at all those elements of the UN declaration that include all our rights to self-determination. They need to allow us the opportunity to be able to sit as nations, with your nations and talk about land. Let’s talk about energy and economics which seem the priorities of the majority of states in the world. This is our lands that we have agreed to help people live and to share. We do not tolerate the abuse we’ve seen, the criminalization of people.
We want people to be comfortable in protecting their rights to self-determination and not being criminalized. We want to have healthy families. We have to look at why is this happening. This is the trauma-informed lens. Why is this happening? This is happening because of the status quo of injustices and colonial assimilation have gone on for so long that people don’t know the difference any more.
We need to educate every single person, even the Indigenous people. We have to educate them as to where we’ve come from and where we’re going. People talk about the Royal Proclamation as being an Indigenous Magna Carta. I disagree. It excluded the people where I come from. It allowed the French settlers to forcibly take our land. My grandmother tells me her family was kicked out of their homes by the Saint-Sulpice Seminary bullies with only the clothes on their back.
The Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, I can’t tell you how they have been influential for the British to allow themselves to keep hold of our land and to cause us not to have access to our lands. They are one of the biggest problems. They were one of the biggest land holders in Canada at one point. They need to be investigated as well. They’re now based in Montreal.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Senator McPhedran did you have a supplementary?
Senator McPhedran: I would like to go back to the doctrine of discovery. You began the presentation by referencing the doctrine of discovery and noting Canada has yet to officially deny that. You then reminded us of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which I think is generally accepted in itself essentially denies the doctrine of discovery.
Then, of course, we have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Calls to Action, No. 45. It calls again for a complete repudiation of the doctrine of discovery.
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think we’re aware of any initiative that’s under way at this point to take this to the next step. Are you aware of any action on the part of the Government of Canada today to formally denounce or repudiate the doctrine of discovery? I know there are a number of papal bulls connected to that. We’re really talking about that fundamental doctrine of discovery. I also want to acknowledge you said to us this is the root of the Oka Crisis as well.
Ms. Gabriel: Yes, the King of France as a child gave a huge land grant to the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice which belonged to the people of the Kanehsatà:ke. As far as I know, Canada has not done that.
The Royal Proclamation did not include Quebec and parts where I come from. It is of the essence and of primary importance that be done so that will allow us to be able to move on and move forward.
We can’t look at things like the Royal Proclamation. They were not made with our consent. It was not created by Indigenous people. It was created by a queen over there and brought back over here. She never set foot on this soil to understand the people and how we live. That we should get their protection to not be molested by the settlers who are coming in. How is that a nation-to-nation relationship? How is that a repudiation? To me, it needs to go further. It needs to be understood by every single part of the Government of Canada and its bureaucrats. That is one of the roots of the evils that have inflicted Indigenous peoples.
I can tell you we have been oppressed. We have had our mail opened and our privacy has been invaded for practising our right to self-determination as Haudenosaunee people.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for being here and for your stirring challenge to us.
You talked about land and the need to get your land back.
Could you give us a little more information about the struggles your people are facing over land?
I understand you gave an interview on the twenty-eighth anniversary of Oka to a Cree radio program in which you said land issues are still being faced by your community today.
Could you give us a little more detail on that struggle?
Ms. Gabriel: Again, it goes back to not respecting our customary laws. Any Indigenous nation in Canada can tell you that.
Could you ask your question again?
Senator Patterson: You gave an interview in 2018, 28 years after the original confrontation over the golf course saying the land issues still exist, you’re still being pressed and they’re still not resolved.
Ms. Gabriel: Yes, Jean Chrétien, when he was in government, had what was called Bill S-24, the Kanesatake Interim Land Base Governance Act and the legal representation for the band council at the time said, “We know that the longhouse people will not vote.” I forgot under which article it is in the Indian Act — you have to have 50 per cent plus one of the entire community.
They said they would make an exception at this time. It passed by one quarter of the community participation and by two votes. It includes fee simple and it allows the municipality of Oka to have jurisdiction and authority over our traditional lands, including Oka Park.
We have not come any closer. In fact, we are moving further away from resolving those issues that sparked the Oka Crisis. We will continue to try and seek peaceful means. This is why I was saying I was trying to get a meeting with Minister Bennett just to begin a process with the longhouse people on this 300-year-old land issue. They will not even recognize us as being legitimate. They tell us to go to the band council. To me, that’s disrespectful.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: We have time for one question.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Gabriel, for being here.
I understand you have been involved in forums at the United Nations. One of the key comments I take away from today is you’re recommending, very strongly, that UNDRIP be implemented.
Could you elaborate on what is in UNDRIP that would change Indigenous lives in the future?
Ms. Gabriel: It would help us restore those institutions that have been attacked, the kind of governments and the decision-making processes that affect our whole community. It’s done in a way where we seek consensus, where we sit in our clans. We understand who is family, who is not and who is there. We think about protection of the land for all our relations.
Since our languages and customs and those values are based on the land, it requires us to have a good understanding of that land and the language that we have. We use the land for our medicines. Those songs and those ceremonies are all based on the land. If we don’t have access to our lands, then we do not exist as a people.
It includes our social and economic rights. We have colonially rooted poverty and people in our community thinking they can do whatever they like. We have laws and we need to teach and educate, from preschool right to high school, all what those values and customs are. We can’t do it when the province is imposing its criteria that the children have to speak a certain level of French before they graduate, never mind their own Indigenous languages. That we restore those kinds of things that provide health for our people, for our communities as nations not just as communities but as nations.
We have seven communities in the Kanien’kehá:Ka Nation alone. We’re under the Iroquois confederacy. What does that mean? It means we sit like the UN and the women sit there right along and they do not allow the chiefs or men to get away with things. They say something. They have a right and their voice is recognized.
For respect, just like Canada, it has a justice, it has a health and it has social services. Those are the things and these are the times our people are living in. We can incorporate Indigenous customary laws and Indigenous customary protocols in the lives and the times the people are living today, but we can’t do that if we’re just struggling to survive.
I’ll go back to the doctrine of discovery. In the preambular paragraph, number 4, it talks about the doctrines of superiority as being morally racist. It’s invalid. We still continue to have bureaucrats impose their ideas to recommend to the ministers. It’s not enough for us to have campaign promises. We need to feel it.
As Senator Coyle mentioned, I’ve been doing this for 28 years. I don’t see any improvements in all the work I have done reflected in the community in which I live.
I see that in other communities. I see the pride and I see that it was an awakening 28 years ago of Indigenous people and Canadians alike. We had Quebec sovereigntists saying, “Before we get sovereignty, we have to recognize and respect Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty.”
Twenty-eight years later, we’re being forced into municipalization. We’re not being dealt with as a nation.
That framework of reconciliation and self-determination is there in the UN declaration because it is comprised of other legal and obligatory international human rights instruments that Canada has been a signatory to.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you, Ms. Gabriel, for appearing this morning. Thank you for your testimony and for your recommendations.
(The committee adjourned.)