---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 7, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021 by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communique from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help present audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the approved black earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting.

When you’re not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the round sticker you see in front of you on the table where indicated.

Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must only plug their earpieces into the microphone console located directly in front of them.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nation, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.

I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory. We’ll start on my left.

Senator Arnot: David Arnot. I’m from Treaty 6 territory in Saskatchewan.

Senator McNair: I’m John McNair, from the province of New Brunswick, standing in for Senator Hartling this morning in unceded Mi’kmaq lands.

Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.

Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, originally from Treaty 6 territory.

The Chair: Today, we will continue our new study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, also known as UNDRIPA, by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.

With that, I would like to introduce our witness: Autumn Laing-LaRose, President, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Provincial Métis Youth Council. Thank you for joining us today.

Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by question-and-answer session with the senators. I now invite Ms. Laing-LaRose to give her opening remarks.

Autumn Laing-LaRose, President, Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Provincial Métis Youth Council, Métis National Youth Advisory Council: Thank you. [Indigenous language spoken]. Hello, everyone. I am the first elected Youth President of the Provincial Métis Youth Council and the Minister of Youth with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. I am also a member of the National Métis Youth Council, which I’m happy to represent today on behalf of Shaughn Davoren from Métis Nation British Columbia, Evan Accettola from Métis Nation Ontario and Rebecca Lavallee from the Otipemisiwak Métis Government in Alberta.

I also want to give a special shout-out to Jordyn Playne, who just finished her four-year term as Youth Representative for Métis Nation Ontario yesterday.

I am grateful to be joining you all today from Treaty 6 territory and homeland of the Métis. I had the honour of meeting some of you at the most recent Model Senate event in Ottawa, which was a great opportunity to meet senators and youth from across Canada.

Exactly one year ago yesterday, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan hosted a one-day workshop for Métis youth to learn about UNDRIP, what it means for Indigenous people in Canada and how they could apply various articles to Métis-specific experiences. We asked youth what UNDRIP meant to them, ways they would implement it and what their priorities were.

The youth shared that they wanted fewer Band-Aid fixes and more actions that address the heart of issues. They wanted to be included in global conversations and — frankly — included overall. They wanted less lip service about the importance of youth and more actions, resources, funding and programming to include youth perspectives and priorities through authentic, purposeful and Indigenous youth-led consultation.

The work in this action plan is critical for the advancement of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Canada being honoured, but there is still so much work to be done.

According to the Yellowhead Institute’s 2023 status update, none of the Calls to Action were completed in 2023, and 81 of the 94 Calls to Action have yet to be completed eight years after their release. Furthermore, as of June 2023, only 2 of the 231 Calls for Justice for MMIWG2S peoples have been completed according to a CBC analysis, with Red Dress Day having been just last weekend.

I raise this because the action plan was created with the intention to build on the work being done with the Calls to Action and the Calls to Justice, and yet we don’t see any work being done in either of those areas.

Since starting this study, you have heard from Indigenous leaders across the country that there is still so much work to be done. I was disappointed by the February 27 panel of government officials because I felt that there was not much substantive progress being reported on, and many questions were left unanswered.

The Government of Canada has yet to make material progress on the action plan. Implementing the declaration requires that Canada reorient its processes and relationships with Indigenous peoples. This is made very clear in the foundational, systemic action plan measures dealing with decision-making, governance and the role of Indigenous governments in consultation and cooperation. Progress has not been made in these areas, and funding continues to be one of the biggest roadblocks in the way.

The most important message that I want all of you to understand is that it is critical to include Indigenous youth in every facet in order to successfully implement UNDRIP in Canada. We need to have a say in the Canada we will be inheriting.

Honourable senators, you do not need any reminder that you have been granted the power and capacity to truly change lives in the most unique and profound ways. The work being done at the Senate in partnership with Indigenous governments, organizations and people — and more specifically, in this committee — has the ability to change my life for the better, forever.

Further, the successful implementation of UNDRIP in Canada will benefit all Canadians. It’s imperative that moving forward, we include Indigenous youth voices in an authentic way, in every aspect of the act and the action plan, so that it can be successfully drawn out within Canada. Thank you so much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Laing-LaRose.

Senator Sorensen: Welcome, Ms. Laing-LaRose. It’s lovely to see you. Thank you for being here.

Access to Métis elementary and secondary education was listed as a Métis priority in the action plan. Could you elaborate on — whether it’s from your own experience or the experiences of members of your organization — what that means? What are the challenges to access for Métis youth? Also, do you have any specific ideas related to education for Métis youth?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Sure. Thank you so much.

I also want to share that I’m a recent Saskatchewan Urban Native Teacher Education Program, or SUNTEP, graduate. It’s a four-year, fully accredited bachelor’s degree in education for Métis people that focuses on Métis history, culture, language and ways to bring those into the classroom. It was an amazing program that allowed me the opportunity to learn more thoroughly about my Métis history, culture and language as well as find ways to bring those into the classroom with every subject.

Growing up, I remember learning about Métis people in Grade 4 for maybe a two-week unit in class and probably never again learned anything — or at least I don’t ever remember learning about it again. Here, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan has introduced various programs for Michif immersion. It started off with pre-K and has been moving up by year. I think some schools are at Grade 1 or Grade 2 already. Hopefully, K to 8 — and eventually, one day, K to 12 — will provide Michif immersion.

One of the biggest issues is that there are only a few of those schools in Saskatchewan. I’m not sure if those schools exist in other provinces, but it was done through a partnership with the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan and various school boards across the province to implement those and support educators, Métis or not, in bringing Métis culture and language.

One of the biggest issues there is overall capacity. Capacity for teachers to bring Métis education to the classroom might mean additional professional development, because they might not have received that in their undergrad. Certainly, if there are any teachers my age — I’m 27 years old — if they went to the college of education at the same time as I did, they probably had to take one mandatory class on Indigenous peoples in Canada; it was left at that. Hopefully, their school has a treaty kit, but for the most part, they are outdated. There is not enough money for schools in general, let alone specialized education programs such as Métis-specific education, around the province.

So, capacity is certainly an issue. To be able to offer that for students across the province — it’s very limited. So capacity would be the biggest issue here in this province.

Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today, Ms. Laing-LaRose. You are very qualified in your work. You met Annie Vincent from my office when you were here. She spoke of you very highly. You’re a very articulate voice for Métis youth. I’m so impressed with your credentials.

You’re also humble, because I believe you’re the first woman Indigenous President of the University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union, so you know how to advocate in a political role.

I’m also impressed by your emphasis on connecting Métis youth with the culture, advocating for mental health and promoting environmental sustainability, as well as amplifying the voices of Métis youth, particularly around inclusivity and empowerment for women and the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community within the Métis population.

Having said that, I have some tough questions for you.

As President of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Provincial Métis Youth Council, how do you see the UNDRIP Act influencing your advocacy for your work with Métis youth? I would like you to elaborate on the strategies that you’re implementing to enhance cultural engagement and language revitalization with Métis youth.

If you have time, I would like you to also talk about the decision-making processes within the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan that give a platform to the youth you represent. Thank you.

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Thank you so much for those questions. You must have googled me. Don’t worry — I googled you, too.

I’ll start at the end of your questions, and then we can go into programming and services. I currently have a seat on the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Provincial Métis Youth Council, and we also have our Métis Nation Legislative Assembly in Saskatchewan, where all of our elected officials come together in a giant room. It’s pretty magnificent-looking, and I invite all of you to join. We have youth delegates who sit at the legislative assembly, as well, who are representatives of the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan Provincial Métis Youth Council. There, we are in the process of creating a more fulsome act that will clearly outline the roles of youth in the province.

We also work very closely with our Department of Youth in all aspects. Within my term, we have included youth on every resolution that the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan passed. It is part of the standard template for all resolutions that youth voices are also included.

So we’re working really hard to include youth in a more authentic way throughout our province and give voices to youth who might not necessarily even be a part of this council. I was really happy that we had a lot of note-takers at our youth UNDRIP workshop who were able to write down the priorities of youth. We had around 70 youth from across the province and invited youth from other parts of Canada to that workshop as well.

I was able to hearing their voices and what their priorities were, reflect on that and bring it the council.

Language is something that is really important to me. I was at a culture camp a few years ago. It was a queer culture camp in the North. We were doing a sharing circle at the end, and a 16‑year-old — I remember it so clearly — she started crying and said, “I don’t have the words to tell you how I’m feeling because I don’t know my language.” Since then, it has shaken me to my core, because I realize truly how much we are missing out on. When I hear the Michif language being spoken, because I’m not fluent in it, I say that it goes to my heart instead of my head. It’s grounding for me.

It’s about figuring out ways to bring that back to youth. The age group that I specifically represent is 16 to 29. The language programs and classrooms that I mentioned are pre-K, maybe up to Grade 2. There is a huge gap right now in the programming and services that need to be offered to help with Michif. In my province, any time one of the Métis locals or an individual hosts a language course, they fill up really quickly — almost within a day. There is not enough capacity or support to offer them every month, so I have yet to take a language class. I tried during COVID, but it’s very hard to do that online. It’s a relational language; you need other people to learn it.

One of the things in Saskatchewan, more specifically, that we’re working on is our first-ever provincial youth conference, to bring in youth from all over Saskatchewan. One of the things that I really noticed during the UNDRIP workshop happened during an exercise we did at the end of the day. We were applying UNDRIP to historical Métis experiences — things like the road allowance communities and so on. We had youth there who had never heard of the road allowance communities. They didn’t know that we even had a language or a flag. It was their first time at an event like that.

As someone who grew up surrounded by the language and culture, it made me take a step back. I said, “Before we can even have a fruitful consultation in terms of our constitution and UNDRIP with Métis youth, we need to make sure they have a good idea of who they are as Métis people.” They need to know their history, culture and language so we are consulting with Métis youth who have a clear understanding of what that means to them.

Senator Arnot: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Thank you, Ms. Laing-LaRose, for being with us and for everything you’re doing. It’s so important.

I’m not telling you something you don’t know already, but youth perspectives are critical to what we do at this table. It’s really encouraging to hear about the spaces that are being created and claimed by youth in your nation and Métis nations across Canada.

I have many questions but will only ask two.

First, I’m curious about the workshop you described that you said took place a year ago yesterday. What were the absolute top priorities, the commonly held priorities by the youth at that workshop, with regard to the implementation of UNDRIP?

Second, we’re hearing loud and clear your perspective on the absolute importance of including youth in all processes and relationships. It sounds like the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, and beyond, is doing a good job of that. When the federal government interacts with a Métis nation, they are interacting with the elected officials of the government of that Métis nation — in your case, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, but also other Métis nations across Canada.

The Government of Canada, I would assume then, is reliant on that nation-to-nation relationship, and I trust that the nation that the Canadian nation is interacting with has internal processes to bring forward the voices of youth. My question is this: Could you talk about that? Do you think the Government of Canada needs to be doing more to ensure that the voices of Métis youth are included in all processes and relationships?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Absolutely. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to be a model senator this year and get to meet some of you — yourself included, Senator Coyle. I was appreciative that you showed up. Not many senators went to meet the youth who had travelled there from across Canada.

Although it is an amazing program, youth were travelling there on their own money, most of them using their student loan money to get an opportunity to go there, staying at Airbnbs, random hotels or couch surfing at friends’ houses so they could be at the Model Senate to have a voice with the government.

That is one aspect, regarding the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan. I certainly believe that nation-to-nation relationship needs to continue. It’s really important. Obviously, the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan as a whole has a number of priorities it is working to advocate for, whereas youth are coming from a very specific perspective with very specific goals in mind.

I really believe that there need to be more opportunities for open dialogue between elected government officials — and non-elected officials, really — and youth, because it’s a really important learning opportunity. It helps build a sense of understanding and a relationship between Indigenous youth — Métis specifically — and the government.

Frankly, from the youth that I speak to, there is not much hope. There isn’t much trust because they see the statistics, such as the fact that 81 out of the 94 Calls to Action have not been completed and only 2 out of the 231 Calls for Justice have been completed. A lot of trust has been broken.

In order for us to move forward and work in a good way, as we like to say — and truly believe — we need to be opening those dialogues with youth directly as well, and finding ways, as I mentioned, to enact authentic, youth-led consultations so that we all understand what the intent of being there is.

Senator Coyle: Could you elaborate on the priorities coming out of that workshop?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Yes, thank you. During that workshop, we focused on health. Mental health was a huge priority. Having access to health care where youth didn’t have to leave their communities for extended periods of time was one of the biggest things discussed in that workshop, because that was in line with some of the UNDRIP articles.

Then, regarding education, youth wanted education to be from Indigenous perspectives and wanted access to on-the-land education. They didn’t want to have to leave their communities to access further post-secondary education, or other further education after their K-12 studies.

Again, mental health was a huge issue. I did some math quickly, because I was watching the past committee meetings on this study. The Deputy Minister of Justice mentioned $650 million for mental health initiatives in communities. I have no clue what specific communities he was referencing. However, I quickly did the math, and that’s around $388 per Indigenous person in Canada. If any of you have gone to therapy in the last couple of years, you will know that that is just under or around the cost of three sessions with a mental health therapist, for the entire year, which certainly isn’t enough money being put toward mental health. Again, he was only referencing that money going to specific communities, so that was a major concern.

Also, climate action and climate change are overwhelmingly some of the biggest issues outside of the workshop generally for Indigenous youth, and Métis youth specifically.

The Métis National Council hosted a national youth summit a couple of weeks ago in early April and invited over 100 Métis youth from all across Canada. We had children as young as 7 years old there. They spoke on a panel as well and shared the art they had done. They shared the same sentiments that the 28‑year‑olds in the room were saying. It is heartbreaking that we had 7‑year‑olds having to say that they didn’t want our oceans to be poisoned, and that they were crying over the fish in the sea dying and the birds in their backyard dying because of pollution, plastic, littering and so on.

It leads into every aspect of our lives. The ecological anxiety that is running rampant among our youth is devastating, because there is a sentiment of, “What is the point? The world is going to end anyway.” How do we combat that?

When talking about health and health initiatives, it was more about seeking medical treatment and not wanting to leave their communities so they could stay with their support systems.

Senator Greenwood: First, thank you for being here today. Thank you for all the work you’re undertaking. I want to follow up a little more in this stream, then ask a different kind of question.

As I was listening to you, I was thinking and trying to envision opportunities for inclusion for youth at multiple levels. You have spoken a lot about Saskatchewan and the regional level.

How would you see youth participating more at a national level? It’s important to hear from you about what that would look like.

You identified some of the priorities, which I’m not surprised by; I wish I was, but I’m not. I want to ask questions and look at it a different way: How will we know when we’re successful? What would that look like for Métis youth from Saskatchewan? If we achieved some of these goals, what would that look like? Can you speak to that? I know they are very big questions.

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Thank you so much.

For your first question, on the national level, I recently had the opportunity to go to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The theme this year was around self‑determination and uplifting the voices of young people. It was the most Indigenous youth at the UN on that scale.

One of the things that Minister Gary Anandasangaree did was host an informal meet-and-greet session with Indigenous youth from Canada. He stayed there until the very end of every last question, until no one had anything further to say. He promised further follow-up, so we are going to be holding him accountable to that.

Opportunities for more authentic and more personal connections with Indigenous youth are necessary. That could include inviting youth to the Senate, showing them what your roles are and giving a tour of the building. For me, the Senate had been a mystery before participating in that educational experience. Now, if someone asks me, I can say what senators do and where they work.

It is important to create more opportunities for Indigenous youth to meet with senators like yourselves and bring them into your spaces. Also, I know you do different studies where you are able to go into communities. I invite all of you to come to Batoche the third weekend in July. Every year, we have over 40,000 people — I think it was closer to 50,000 last year — at Batoche. We had people quite literally from all around the world. We met people from Europe who had come specifically because they had heard what kind of celebration it was. At Batoche, we will have multiple youth tents where you can come and meet with Métis youth from all across the country who will be participating that weekend.

National conferences or summits are amazing opportunities for us to learn more about your roles and maybe for you to hear us more efficiently. Creating more opportunities, even if you were to host a Zoom round table, inviting Indigenous youth from your region, could go a long way, especially with that relationship building.

Regarding your second question — can you repeat it quickly, please?

Senator Greenwood: How will we know when we have been successful?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: If I can be very candid, we’ll know we have been successful when we stop creating action plans that promise Indigenous people their basic human rights.

When I was reading through the action plan and it was promising to end discrimination and racism — one day, we can make an action plan that starts getting to the work and talking about things that are not solely focused on Canadians recognizing my basic human and Indigenous rights as an Indigenous person. It is so frustrating to see that in Canada. I say this as a general statement, but we need to start recognizing that not only engaging with Indigenous peoples but opening up opportunities for them to lead the way for the changes they want to see is going to benefit all Canadians. When everyone in this country is happy, healthy and able to be proud of who they are, we will be a thriving country.

So, one of the biggest signs will be when we, hopefully, no longer have the first two and a half to three pages of our national action plan talking about our basic human rights, and can start talking about actual, actionable and maybe more fun aspects of what we plan to do as nations working together.

Senator Greenwood: Thank you very much.

Senator Coyle: Ms. Laing-LaRose, one of the things that came into my head as you were speaking was this: You spoke a fair bit about Métis youth looking to have post-secondary education opportunities as well as mental health and health care access in their communities. That made me think that quite a number of the youth are from Métis-specific geographic communities.

Could you speak a little about urban communities? How many youth are living outside their traditional Métis territories compared to how many are in those traditional communities? How does it work — making sure all of the voices are heard?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Certainly.

Edmonton actually has the largest population of Métis youth in Canada. So the Métis Nation of Alberta — the Otipemisiwak Métis government in Alberta — has created buildings specifically for Métis youth to offer cultural programming and support to the services they have. They created a space for Métis youth within that city. I believe they have other locations in Alberta, as well.

In Saskatchewan, from my experience, a large number of Métis youth are in the cities. I had the opportunity to watch the Friendship Centres give their piece. Some of the bigger things they were advocating for were more programming and support for Indigenous people in urban settings because of the lack of connection to their communities, culture or cultural experiences.

In Saskatchewan, when we introduced the post-secondary funding within the Métis Nation-Saskatchewan, we saw a huge increase in Métis youth applying for citizenship. We started to have things as a government to offer to our citizens, in a way. Because of where our post-secondaries are, a lot of those students who were already of post-secondary age living in Saskatoon or Regina were then applying for their citizenship, so it does look like we have higher numbers within those urban settings. We certainly do, but they travel from all over the province to those urban settings for post-secondary education. On one hand, if they could stay in their communities, they would; however, they have to go to urban settings so they can access certain jobs, health care or education.

I am in 100% agreement with the Friendship Centres that there need to be more programs and services for Indigenous youth within urban settings so they can feel a deeper connection to their communities, whatever that means to them, as well as to their culture and understanding.

Saskatoon, where I used to live, is a huge area. I saw smaller youth-led non-profits doing that work, but for them, it is a huge capacity issue to do the work they want to do and reach the youth they want to.

Senator Coyle: So, in your estimation, the Friendship Centres and these other youth-led non-profits could be important actors in the implementation of the UNDRIP action plan.

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Yes, absolutely. I heard them loud and clear in terms of them wanting to work more closely with Indigenous governments within their provinces.

In Saskatchewan, a lot of our elected officials’ offices are outside the Friendship Centres themselves. We are working on that relationship here in this province. They have already created a central hub specifically for urban Indigenous people. Moving forward, since watching their testimony, it clicked for me that I should be building a better relationship with the Friendship Centres, because they already have or are trying to build that connection to Indigenous youth within Saskatchewan.

At the same time, a lot of work needs to be done to make it specific to Métis people and culture. It cannot just be a pan‑Indigenous approach and needs to have that distinction. I know they spoke — maybe not against it, but saying that they need support in a more general sense. So we have to figure out what that balance is going to look like.

The Chair: The floor is still open.

Senator Arnot: I have a general question. If you had a list of things that you would like us to put in a report on this issue, how would you prioritize it, and what would you say are the most critical items from your perspective?

Ms. Laing-LaRose: Thank you so much. I was reading through the action plan and basically all of the reports and briefings that came out, doing a simple word search, looking at every time the term “youth” was mentioned. I noticed that the term “youth” was only mentioned in sentences that said, “We should be engaging with youth.” However, I haven’t been made aware of any actual work being done to engage with youth and take that a step further. So, I would certainly invite this committee to find ways to work with the Métis National Youth Council within the Métis National Council, or MNC, because we have that connection with youth from Ontario, Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. We’ll be able to connect you to Métis youth in that stream and certainly with the other Métis governments to find opportunities to work with the youth there.

We need to take that next step. We just keep saying that we need to engage with youth. From what I’ve read, I’m not much sure how much engagement was actually been done writing the action plan whatsoever. Regarding the UNDRIP articles themselves, historically, the UN has not been the most welcoming to Indigenous youth. There is the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, which has been working very hard to make their voices heard. But even the creation of UNDRIP itself needed more youth voices. I think that out of the 40 or so articles, it only mentions “youth” specifically twice. So, I would really like the work of figuring out how to take those next steps to be done by Indigenous youth specifically. I’ll take that back to the Métis National Youth Council and ask about the ways we could engage with the Senate on UNDRIP and this study. I will email that to the people that need to be emailed, because it needs to come from both sides.

Certainly, I don’t think we have started the work of engaging youth that. That will be the biggest priority for me.

Senator Arnot: Thank you very much for that advice.

The Chair: There is no one on the list. The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank you, Ms. Laing-LaRose, for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk.

I would now like to introduce our next panel of witnesses. From the Atikamekw Nation Council, Constant Awashish, Grand Chief; and from the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, David Chartrand, President. Thank you both for joining us today.

Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.

I now invite Grand Chief Awashish to give his opening remarks.

Constant Awashish, Grand Chief, Atikamekw Nation Council: Thank you very much. Good morning, distinguished members of the committee. I have been the Grand Chief of the Atikamekw Nation since 2014. My role and the role of our organization as Atikamekw Nation Council is to provide and serve our people and defend our rights on the land.

I don’t know why I’m speaking English. I guess I’ll turn back to French, which I’m more comfortable speaking. Sorry, everybody.

[Translation]

Good morning. Thank you for having me today. I represent the Atikamekw Nation. I have been the Grand Chief of the Atikamekw Nation since 2014. I am here to share my observations on the first year of implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP.

My role as Grand Chief is to defend the interests of the Atikamekw Nation and to protect the territorial integrity of the traditional territory of the Atikamekw people. We have faced many challenges over the past few years, and we have worked very hard. You probably all heard about the tragic death of Joyce Echaquan, a member of our nation who died in a public hospital in Joliette under terrible circumstances. Since 2020, we have been working very hard to have systemic racism recognized in Quebec. It is arduous work. Some of you probably heard that, in 2014, we declared sovereignty over our territory, something we saw as necessary to ensure that our rights were recognized and our ancestral territory protected.

First, I’d like to thank the federal government and acknowledge the years of effort and representation, and the cooperation of the parties to advance recognition of UNDRIP. I’m familiar with the history, as I’m sure you all are. In Canada, the first milestones on the road towards recognition of the declaration were reached under the previous Conservative government, which took the first steps towards recognition of UNDRIP. Then, in 2021, the Liberal government implemented it. That is a historic event for the Government of Canada, as well as for all First Nations in Canada.

I know there is much work to do. Overall, the work on UNDRIP is very positive. It shows the political courage of the Government of Canada, which, for the past few years, has sought to recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples.

Nevertheless, I have concerns about the declaration, not necessarily about the actual products related to its implementation, but rather about its effects on the general public. Everyone recognizes the historical wrongs perpetrated against First Nations, but people don’t necessarily understand the ins and outs of ancestral rights and titles. When I talk to non-Indigenous people, many of their comments revolve around the considerable uncertainty and their concerns. Apart from implementing the declaration, it’s important to work on better communicating what ancestral rights are. Better education and more awareness are needed so that the public understands what all this means. The public needs to know the value of the advancement of First Nations and all the ways it can benefit Canadian society as a whole.

I’ve often said this — in fact, I say it all the time. My philosophy is that we need strong provinces and a strong country to have a strong Atikamekw Nation. The reverse is also true. People need to understand that, in order to have strong provinces, the provinces need to understand that Indigenous nations must be just as strong, so that people can benefit from that strength. The same goes for Canada. Canada needs strong Indigenous nations so that everyone can enjoy equal economic growth and better living conditions all over Canada. That’s my approach.

For that to happen, the public needs reassurance about the effects of UNDRIP. Furthermore, as I’m trying to explain, it’s important to help the public understand that everyone will benefit from the advancement of First Nations in Canada.

Having discussed this with many elders, I can tell you that, currently, people welcome the positive approach towards First Nations that we’ve seen in recent years. However, they’re concerned that the public may not understand the approach as a whole and that the situation could turn against us because of more populist movements. Some fear that people will see all of this as Indigenous privilege, when that isn’t necessarily true. A poor understanding or misreading of the situation can cause the public to have concerns, and that can create challenges in implementing UNDRIP.

This is what I want to convey in my opening remarks: We need to make sure that Canadians as a whole really know what this entails so they don’t have concerns about Indigenous rights. Indigenous people have always been open and have always valued an approach based on sharing.

Now what we want is survival.

What we also want is for everyone to succeed and enjoy the benefits of a strong economy. That means everyone has to work together.

[English]

First Nation or not, we have to empower each other and all governments — the provincial, federal and First Nation governments. Then the future of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be assured. Let’s work toward that. Thank you for receiving me this morning.

The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Awashish. I now invite President Chartrand to give his opening remarks.

David Chartrand, President, Manitoba Métis Federation: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start by saying that the Métis Federation is the national government of the Red River Métis. I want to make it very clear that the Métis National Council, or MNC, does not represent our people in any capacity. The Red River Métis is a distinct Indigenous people and nation. We have our own identity established within our homeland in the historical northwest, centred in the Red River Valley. Our Red River Jig, Red River cart and Red River symbols, history and heroes are all rooted at the Red River. We continue to govern ourselves in our ancestors’ tradition. For over 200 years, we have exercised self-determination and self-government.

In 1870, we entered a treaty which brought our homeland into Canada. Our homeland became what today are the Prairie provinces. We became known as Canada’s negotiating partner in Confederation and the founders of Manitoba. But the treaty promises were not kept.

After 150 years, the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2013 Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada decision kick-started negotiations. In 2021, Canada and the MMF signed the Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, entering onto a new path in the journey of reconciliation. The self-government agreement is fundamental for a new, modern treaty. With this treaty, Canada and the Red River Métis will be renewing our vows. We look forward to it being brought to Parliament in the very near future.

We believe our new, modern treaty with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and the action plan will provide solid foundations for rebuilding our nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship and renewing the broken constitutional promises of 1870. This is a reconciliation priority.

As we move forward, we emphasize three areas. The first is identity theft, which is ruining culture, distinctiveness and identity. This is addressed in UNDRIP Article 8. Outside of our traditional homeland, those in the East are gaining ground in an attempt to steal not just an individual’s identity, but that of an entire nation. They steal our heritage and symbols to benefit themselves. We urge Canada to work with us to make policy to protect Red River Métis identity. As we move forward, we offer assistance to ensure that the action plan will guide and result in effective measures to protect our identity and those of other Indigenous peoples.

Second, the Red River Métis government across borders must be promoted and include programs and services across provincial boundaries. This is covered in UNDRIP Article 36. While the arbitrary, colonial boundaries or 1870 divided us, today, our citizens live inside and outside Manitoba. We are taking steps to revitalize our nation and homeland. We ask Canada to work together with us to co-develop and implement measures to assist the MMF, the national Red River Métis government representing our citizens across both provincial and international boundaries.

Third, health is included in UNDRIP Articles 23 and 24. Studies show that our health status is well below Canadian expectations. We have a higher incidence of chronic diseases, in some cases surpass those of First Nations. We all know the story of the health conditions of First Nations. Imagine how bad it is that the Métis have surpassed that. We have no programs, services or supports; no doctors or nurses; and no health hubs or stations in any of our communities, yet we pay billions in taxes. All we ask is for some of that to be returned.

Despite the UNDRIP Act and action plan, as well as the Supreme Court Daniels decision of 2016, our citizens remain caught in a legacy of jurisdictional football and remain excluded from the 1979 First Nations and Inuit Health Branch Policy and Jordan’s Principle. I am convinced that together we can find a pact to successfully resolve what could rightfully be called a health crisis.

The action plan commits Canada to work with the MMF to implement UNDRIP, to advance reconciliation and our inherent rights. The action plan must ensure the full and meaningful representation and participation of the Red River Métis.

To implement UNDRIP, we ask Canada to work directly with us as a distinct Indigenous people, using a nation-to-nation, government-to-government approach with a bilateral mechanism. To be a strong partner in implementation, we are developing our own action plan, focusing on our people’s priorities. Our action plan includes all areas of governance, including child and family services, to extend and enhance our structures and institutions, encompass the entirety of our homeland and support our citizens no matter where they live. This is our focus. We have a lot of catching up to do.

Our treaty and action plan can set a new direction. We can define our rules and set our tasks. We look forward to working with Canada in true reconciliation. There is much to be accomplished to renew our partnership and build our future together. I’ll be happy to address any questions from this committee. Meegwetch, and thank you for inviting me today.

The Chair: Thank you, President Chartrand. Before we move on to questions, I want to also acknowledge Al Benoit, Chief of Staff, Manitoba Métis Federation. He is seated at the table beside President Chartrand. I neglected to introduce him earlier. My apologies.

Senator Coyle: Good morning. Welcome to all of our guests here today. I’m going to begin with a question for Grand Chief Awashish. I will ask it in English.

I found your testimony fascinating and critical. You talked about this relationship between your people and nation and people who are not members of your nation, particularly where you live — other people who are Canadians and Quebecois, in your case — and this fear that some people who are not of your First Nation would see the implementation of UNDRIP as them losing something if you gained something, that it is zero-sum and there is only a pie that is this big, and if it’s divided up, they are going to get less instead of seeing an opportunity to grow the pie together. That is what I took from what you said — that if everybody flourishes, your First Nations and Métis and others across Canada flourish as a result of successful implementation of UNDRIP, then everybody benefits.

So, I’m very interested in this approach. I don’t doubt that you’re saying this from your own experience. We know that the National Council for Reconciliation — the legislation just received Royal Assent last week. With that, that body has a couple of responsibilities. One is — as I understand it — to hold the government to account on monitoring activities that are going to lead to the outcomes agreed to. The other is to advocate for reconciliation.

Are there specific things that you think are very important for the federal government, this council and other actors in Canada to take up to ensure that the benefits of UNDRIP that everybody will see are clear to all Canadians? Are there specific things you would like to see happen?

Mr. Awashish: Thank you for that question. Thank you for your remark as well. What would I like to see? I think it’s one thing to say reconciliation. I think we now all understand and the general population is more aware of the history of First Nations: the residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, missing and murdered Aboriginal women, et cetera. I think the general population has been very traumatized in the last 10 years about all those revelations concerning First Nations. Of course, it was eye-opening for all of them.

As I said, you mentioned it again, we have to make sure that people are reassured. Yes, we feel a bit of anger. We still have a few issues with the policies that were put toward First Nations. But if we recognize all this in the proper way, I think we can grow together.

My main focus lately, what I feel from what I heard — I don’t know if it’s a good thing, but I think that’s the value of our people — is to always talk to elders. Elders, when I talk to them, they say everything is good. We need to denounce everything that happened to us. The general population is changing as well. As I mentioned earlier, yes, it’s very positive, but we don’t want them to think we are gaining more than the general population. We don’t want backlash toward us later.

I think we need to really focus on increasing awareness in the general population. We need to increase funding on — I don’t know. I’m not an expert in marketing, but something that’s going to bring more knowledge about UNDRIP to the general population so they can feel at ease about everything that the Government of Canada is doing right now to help First Nations grow and to close the gap. I think if we — all of us together — are able to recognize that, then we will be able to work toward closing the gap between the general population and First Nations. That’s where we need to put our focus. That’s my point of view.

There are many other aspects of UNDRIP that are still lacking. But I think my main concern is that we want the positives to grow in the future. We want Canadians to feel that they are part of it. I want Canadians to feel that we — all of us together — can get more benefits from recognizing Aboriginal rights.

In terms of environment, I think it’s important. We bring a lot. We have knowledge to share. All of that together — for me, we need to keep Canadians open to receiving more information. We need to keep Canadians open to accepting everything that is moving toward recognizing the inherent rights of First Nations.

We must put money into more campaigns of awareness and education for government workers and in school programs; that’s how people are going to understand that we can grow stronger together. That’s basically what I think about your question about how to put our foot in the right place.

Senator Sorensen: Welcome, and thank you for being here. I’m going to direct this question to President Chartrand. I had the pleasure of meeting with President Chartrand and his team at their offices in Ottawa. I highly recommend you all go and meet with them there. Obviously, much respect for the work you do for the Red River Métis in Manitoba.

What involvement or influence did the MMF have in identifying the priorities in the action plan? Do you believe that the consultation was thorough?

In your comments, you spoke to your priorities, and most of them were in the act; you were quoting some clauses. But are there any issues you think the action plan has left unaddressed and is silent on?

Mr. Chartrand: First, thank you for the question. May I answer your question just a little bit, if you don’t mind? Because you made a statement, or asked a question, that precludes the question of our contribution and why there is a difference of feeling or opinion.

I want to speak a little about that, because you see the contributions we make and heard my presentation. We pay billions and billions in taxes. So do First Nations. When you look at it, the contributions we make are never seen in the Canadian eye, in the public eye.

We run many businesses. I gave a million to cancer care recently. I also gave a million for missing Indigenous women. Through our businesses, we truly contribute, but it’s not shown or seen. We look like children looking for handouts. We’re not. We contribute to the economy and society. We put a lot of resources into building and helping this country — and even fought for this country in world wars. I thought I would share that. It’s not seen.

We look like we have our hand out. That’s not the case. We are looking for what is rightly ours so we can advance. If people start speaking like that, government-to-government, nation-to-nation, you’ll get a better perspective from all of society in this country.

Moving to your question, our staff didn’t feel that there was a true interchange of discussion. You saw my chief of staff lean out toward me just now; they felt as if they were talking into deaf ears, that people were just checking a box and continuing on their pathway forward.

I truly respect what the Senate is doing in calling this conference and having this discussion on this subject. UNDRIP is a very important tool, though late in coming in this country. We are still a young country, but this is late in coming.

When we look at it, there are many perspectives on how it was written, your articles and statements inside your UNDRIP. You talk about “state,” but is that the federal state or the provincial state? There are jurisdictional boundaries here. Provinces have jurisdiction when it comes to education and health.

Right now, we’re still trying to battle our way into Canada. In 2016, we won the Daniels decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, where the federal government is 100% liable and responsible to our people on a constitutional and fiduciary basis, but we still haven’t gotten there. We are still excluded.

If you look at the information from Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, Crown-Indigenous Relations or any of those institutions, you’ll see that health is still called “First Nations and Inuit Health Branch,” or there is “First Nation and Inuit Policing” and “First Nation Inuit —” And I’m not opposed to that. I strongly support First Nations and Inuit and their success in this country.

But what is wrong? What is missing? Métis. There is no mention of Métis anywhere. That frustrates me so much. I educate my people back home. I’ve been president 27 years. My background is in the Department of Justice. When looking at the issue, I tell my people, “We paid billions in taxes, so why are we excluded? What is wrong with us? What is wrong with this country that they don’t recognize us?”

When there were world wars happening, they found us very quickly, so we could go across the seas to fight for people we didn’t even know. After the wars were over, they forgot all about us again.

From my perspective, when we look at the articles in UNDRIP, we have to be careful. Now, let’s not forget UNDRIP was feared by everybody. There was a big statement in this country that UNDRIP was going to create chaos with the economic engine. None of that has happened.

I said publicly, nationally, that the free and prior consent that is established in there does not prohibit this country — and the economic engine of this country — from moving forward in partnership with us. It doesn’t give us a free hand to block everything with one statement and say, “No, it needs to be 100% before we move forward.” That’s not what it meant to me. It meant we would force industry to come to our table and sit down as equal partners.

When you look at what is missing, I think the context of a true respect — When she asked about the national committee — I don’t support that. I’m against it and will tell you why. I’m against the council. I do not believe the council should exist. Although it’s there, it’s late in the game.

We already signed our self-government agreement in 2021 with Canada as a national government. We have no more boundaries anymore. The provincial boundaries of Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. are all gone; those of the United States and the Northwest Territories are gone. We signed that agreement and went back to the traditional way that this country looked like and our territorial homeland, and it ends at the Rockies.

So when you start looking at that aspect, the national government body, or national council, I see it as a potential threat to us that could be used as a tool to fight us. With respect to UNDRIP, without the right leader in this country, or the right intent of this country, that body will be used to say we spoke nationally and that is our position. It doesn’t matter what Constant or I say. Again, I’m elected by the people. That body will have jurisdictional power by sitting down with the government, speaking to Parliament and telling Parliament what is good for us, not what I say is good for me, and I’m elected by the people. You have been selected as senators, and we have to believe in the faith of senators — that you’re there for a purpose, which is to protect and be a watchdog over government.

Now this watchdog that is being developed is not even consulting with or talking to us on what the rules will be or how powerful it will be. Right now, I absolutely do not trust this national body, but I think there is enough in UNDRIP itself, the way it’s written. How it’s going to be used is the real challenge, senator.

Thank you very much for the question. I apologize for the longevity of my answer, but all of this interconnects itself with the process your question leads to. Thank you.

Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I am going to go into some uncomfortable territory between First Nations and Métis, but you know we need to have that conversation.

First, Canada has not done justice to its Métis people across the land. As a First Nation woman, I don’t know what a Métis nation is other than the Manitoba Métis Federation, because I grew up with that and have family in the MMF. I’m troubled by the ever-increasing numbers of people self-identifying as Métis and First Nation people without verification, yet some Métis historical communities have been left out, in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I work with them.

So as First Nations people, we don’t limit ourselves to understanding ourselves just as individuals; the community and the collective is at the forefront of advocacy, interests and rights. This collective experience of injustice and oppression impacts the abilities of the collective to function and renew itself. That is absolutely crucial. The collective is more than the sum of individual capabilities.

Without verification, Canada has allowed the Métis to not only be involved in claims for land, autonomy, political participation, natural resources and development, and they have allowed it to happen without question. So, for us, understanding who the Métis are is critical to looking at the inherent rights of the two groups. That will be my second question.

Can you comment on that? What can we do to help us understand?

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question, senator.

Without doubt, you’re absolutely right. Without a doubt, I think everybody knows — I apologize; I don’t think everybody knows. They should know by now. I asked my wife the other day, “When will this country realize who we are?” When I go to an assembly somewhere — I travel and speak all over the world on economic development and Indigenous collective partnership — I will sit there, look back and reflect on my thoughts and positions after 27 years as president. This country went to war with us. The first war actually happened 1816, then again in 1870 and 1885; those were the last battles — I’m talking military battles. You ask yourself, “Why don’t Canadians know who we are?” All they ever talk about is the negativity of Louis Riel, that he was a traitor and treasonous and so on. In every capacity, he was negative — always a negative connotation. Even in 1816, with the battle of free trade that took place — we won a victory in that battle, and what did Canada call it? The “massacre” of Seven Oaks. They had to make us look like villains; they couldn’t make us look like heroes or that we were fighting for free trade. We call it the Victory at Frog Plain. That first battle took place in downtown Winnipeg.

When you look at history, wherever Métis have defined themselves with a symbolism — just look at these beads I’m wearing here. Indigenous people knew each other just by beadwork. We knew who they were when we looked at the beadwork, and they knew who we were. First Nations used to call us [Indigenous language spoken] — “the people who own themselves,” because they knew the state took control, put them in reserves, and took away their freedoms, prosperity and opportunities. They took away their ownership. That fight continues today under the Indian Act.

However, from our perspective as Métis, we are known. But the mistake that happened in this country was that we should not have been waiting until 1982 for Métis rights to be added to the Constitution.

First, this country denied that provisional government was legal. Now we have proven it’s legal. They denied that Riel was the first premier. We got that done 154 years later.

When you start looking at what has taken place, you see our people’s history has been denied by this country. In 1982, the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau agreed to make the constitutional revision. Now that the Métis are placed in the Constitution, the question is, “Okay, what does that mean?” The answer back was, “You tell me what that means.” Since 1982, we have been worrying about trying to define who we are as a people. The government should understand us without question.

What government did was go against us. They wouldn’t recognize us as rights-bearing people. Then we won the Daniels decision in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2016. It hasn’t changed anything yet. It’s slowly shifting, but identity theft is now here. People are seeing the prosperity from our Indigenous policies and have shifted because of our politics. Leaders — Constant and I — fight for the leadership and the rights to protect our people, and we changed policy. Now people are saying, “I could get a ride here.” People have gotten it for judgeship, police officers or probation officers, as well as in different fields — health and so forth. Even Buffy, a great singer, was recently challenged about her identity.

When you started looking at all of these things and start to see the danger, not only is there a singular attempt to steal our identity, there is now a full-nation attempt by Ontario to steal who we are. They are taking our beadwork. They are taking our infinity flag that flew in 1860 during the first battle in the Prairies. They are taking our heroes. They are taking our red — why do you think it’s called “the Red River Jig”? Where do you think it comes from? The Red River. Where does the Red River fiddle come from? The Red River. And the Red River cart? The Red River. Now they are symbolizing and carrying those around, saying they’re theirs. That’s why we and the chiefs of Ontario are hosting a summit. I invite you all to come. It’s on May 14 and 15 in Winnipeg. The chiefs of Ontario and the Manitoba Métis Federation are hosting a summit about identity theft, because we are worried, as leaders, that people are coming and nobody is stopping them. Don’t be afraid to challenge people. Don’t be afraid to think you might be discriminatory or racist or be challenged in that respect by asking the question of them.

I have said that to Ontario folks who claim to be Métis — in Ottawa, Simcoe and all around the Quebec border. I told them to tell their history and do like we did. It took us hundreds of years to get where we are in this country. Now they are riding in our Red River cart now and saying they are us. They should tell us who they really are — tell us their history. Maybe government will recognize them. Maybe they will have a right — I don’t know — but they’re clearly not us and should quit stealing who we are.

So the question you have is a very serious on. I encourage non-Indigenous people to not be afraid to ask the question, “Who are you?” We recognize the Red River Métis of the Prairies; there is not a doubt. The First Nations have been here for 10,000 years. That’s not in question. But let them decide who they are. Let us decide who we are.

But then, once we do that, respect it, protect it and stand for it. Let no one come and tell us they are us until asked the open question, “Tell me your history.” They won’t be able to answer, because they can’t be us. We are not them.

At the end of the day, that’s the question you need not be afraid to ask — “Who are you? Tell me your history.”

Senator McCallum: I will go on a second round.

Senator Arnot: Thank you. I have two questions. One is for Grand Chief Constant Awashish.

Your nation’s council has worked very hard to ensure the rights of your community members. In particular, I’m thinking of Joyce’s Principle. Could you describe that work and what you hope it will achieve? In your view, has the UNDRIP Act had an impact on the will of government to support important efforts like Joyce’s Principle?

My question to President Chartrand is this: Could you briefly update us on the impact of the Red River Manitoba Métis Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement? In particular, could you to give us an update on the future goals of the Manitoba Métis Federation? I’m thinking about self‑government, economic development and Indigenous rights. Also, how will the UNDRIP Act factor into your strategies? Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Awashish: Thank you very much. First, I believe the Government of Canada mentioned Joyce’s principle in relation to the UNDRIP Act. It’s in the government’s action plan.

It was very demanding work, emotionally speaking. It was a small team we had doing all that work. We worked very hard to put forward recommendations, directives and procedures for public services, including education. The main focus was the health system, health care institutions and services. It pertains to the training of future nurses and doctors, and public awareness around the systemic racism First Nations people have long faced. Government workers also need to be educated, so that they can better understand the reality of First Nations people.

As Indigenous leaders, we feel like broken records. We have repeatedly proposed solutions and practices. Everyone pretty well knows the situation. Multiple commissions have been set up at various points in time, and they have all come to the same conclusion: The public’s perception of First Nations people has to change. Joyce’s principle is really about getting people to understand the problematic situation in the health system. Joyce’s principle is one piece of the overall UNDRIP package. We have a lot of concerns on that front.

I am here before you today, and I appreciate your having me, but it involves preparation. We have to marshal resources. I know it’s important to hold a meeting every year. You’ll be doing annual updates on the declaration’s implementation. First Nations also need resources to prepare and help the committee make better recommendations or amendments. Those are things we’re concerned about.

There’s something particular about our situation, in Quebec. The Government of Quebec doesn’t really accept UNDRIP at this point, so that makes our work a bit more challenging. I said earlier that funding should be increased to reflect the needs and realities in each province. As a point of comparison, take British Columbia, which works very proactively to recognize Indigenous rights and inherent rights. The province is doing well economically and has an excellent approach. In Quebec, however, the government has to work harder with the government in that province to advance and uphold UNDRIP implementation.

The work is somewhat of a challenge for us. The history with Quebec is particular, so we have to put forth a great deal of effort. I know all kinds of committees exist all over the place for a variety of reasons, but it’s important to establish a committee where First Nations can sit down and share their concerns and recommendations on the future of UNDRIP specifically. The idea would be to find ways to improve implementation and lay out all the legislative changes that are necessary. Using outside committees to do that work can be helpful, but First Nations have to play an integral role on all those committees in order to foster a better understanding of UNDRIP.

That was more or less the idea behind Joyce’s principle. We wanted to educate governments and have them adopt Joyce’s principle. The federal government recognized and adopted the principle. Unfortunately, however, the Government of Quebec didn’t want to adopt it, despite the tragedy and the advice of a number of experts, despite the doctrines and commissions recognizing that First Nations face systemic racism. The issue with the Government of Quebec was that it didn’t want to recognize that word, which was part of Joyce’s principle.

That’s our situation. We continue to defend our interests in order to raise awareness, educate people and reshape how they think about and look at First Nations people. We do that with a view to building a better relationship between the province and ourselves, the Atikamekw Nation, as well as all First Nations in Quebec. Again, the central issue is that we are talking about land rights, inherent rights and self-determination, and we can’t talk about those things without talking about natural resources and land.

The way Canada is designed, jurisdiction is in the hands of the provinces. That is an additional challenge when it comes to the implementation of the declaration and the receptiveness of the provinces. I want to acknowledge and commend British Columbia’s proactive efforts on that front. It’s an altogether different situation in Quebec. We hope that the federal government can set up a mechanism, or create a position for a rapporteur or representative to better explain UNDRIP, the effects of implementation and all the benefits it can have for society as a whole. As things stand, Quebec hasn’t understood that, unfortunately.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Arnot: I have a follow-up question for Grand Chief Awashish. I’m going to hold for the second round, but I want to hear President Chartrand on my first question.

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you very much, Senator Arnot. I am listening to the questions I’m hearing here today — and I thank you for them. They are very important. Truly, if I could ask the Senate to do anything, it would be to do a study on who the Red River Métis are. I think that would carry such great value and weight for this country and any government, even the existing government today.

You wanted an update on our treaty. We are at the final stage, back and forth now for years on the discussion of the treaty with Canada. Now we have concluded, I believe, every comma, dot and word. It has gone back and forth for quite a number of years. Consultations occurred. We have met thousands upon thousands of people on our treaty.

How does it coalesce with UNDRIP? There is not a question the two will interact and help each other. The treaty is more about principle than anything else for us as the Red River Métis. We see our history and our battle to recognize Riel as our first premier, which took 154 years. Taking down the grotesque statue outside our legislative assembly and replacing it with a statement statue took 120 years.

When you start looking at the treaty itself, it sets the stage for the process of getting past this hurdle about recognizing the Red River Métis of the Prairies, our historical rights and land base and that we coexist with First Nations in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Remember what I said earlier: We removed the boundaries, so they no longer exist. We have thousands coming from across the West to get their citizenship card from us. Our government now has a mandate. Our treaty is very clear. I don’t say, “Because you are a Red River citizen, I represent you.” You have to ask us to represent you. That gives democracy its real power.

When you look at it in the context of the future, this treaty is pivotal to recognizing our nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationship. It will work well with UNDRIP. It also protects future long-term relations.

You asked an important question — namely, how to anticipate the impacts of this treaty. Look at our economic engine. You heard that we donate money to different charities and supports. We run our own pharmacies and construction companies and are doing well. I created my own pharmacies because my people couldn’t afford medicine. A study was done which showed that we had the highest incidence of chronic illness in Manitoba. We surpassed First Nations, which is sad to use as an example. Unfortunately, that was the only tool that we had to showcase how bad it was for us with respect to health. I’m sincere when I say this: We have no health programs from Canada whatsoever. Look at where we are now in the study. I told my captain, “We can keep on crying and yelling into the wind, but if we don’t find solutions ourselves, our people will still be dying in their sixties — when they shouldn’t be dying — because they can’t afford their medicine.” When they are pensioners and get a bill for an ambulance, they are already broke because they have to pay for their rent, their food and everything else. We take all the profit out of our pharmacies. As a government, we don’t use it. We pay the medicine costs for those aged 55 and over, and I’m going to lower that as we make more revenue.

When you look at the opportunities that exist in this country, the more that is known about the Red River Métis, the greater the ability for us to continue to create our own policies.

Housing was handed to us from Manitoba. We finally won a massive victory. You may not see it as that, but for us it was a big victory. We took away the power of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC — that is, the power of the federal government — to decide policies about what is best for our housing. Control was given to us. I have 100% control and decide what is needed for housing. In 2.5 years, I spent $3 million and we bought 1,000 houses. Tell me how I could do that. Premiers are shocked when I tell them that I only spent $3 million and 1,000 families bought their houses all across Manitoba and into the Prairies.

The opportunity is to give us the right to make decisions. We have our own harvesting laws. You asked a question about what it will lead to. We have laws. The government laughed at me when I introduced them when I became president. They said, “Canadian credit cards are worth a lot more. Don’t listen to Mr. Chartrand. He’s crazy. Those cards are meaningless.” Today, they are the law. We have stricter conservation laws than the Province of Manitoba because we are thinking about the generations to come. This will give us the ability and opportunity to start doing things. We can decide our own fate and our own future. This is what the treaty will do. This is what self‑government does.

I even told this to the Government of Canada. I said, “You don’t have to give me money. Use procurement as a true tool. You will create thousands of jobs for Indigenous people if it is used right.” We are using it right now. It is unbelievable what the power of procurement can do. We have a relationship right now with Canada. They are spending $20 billion on an air force plant. We have a piece of that action, 5%. Do you know how many jobs that will create and the ability that we will have? That procurement is truly being used, and it doesn’t cost Canada one penny. It’s just a change in policy.

If you want to believe in self-government, then treat us as a government. Bring us to the table. Ask us what’s good for us. If you don’t agree, let’s debate it. But at least give us the tools and the opportunity to do so. This is what the treaty will do. It will finally force Canada to the table so that we can talk government-to-government. Trust me, you will see change. It will not cost this country a lot of money. We have given the country a lot of money already. At the end of the day, the change will be remarkable. Imagine — with $3 million, we bought 1,000 houses. With the $291 million in mortgages that our people have been able to access on their own, all they need is a bit of help. The rest is theirs. There are over 400 of them looking for houses to buy right now. So we’ll have 1,500 houses bought by our people within a year. We are solving some of the problems Canada currently has. That’s the treaty. That’s self‑government. That’s what UNDRIP will start to do.

Senator McCallum: You talked about systemic racism. I’m going to talk about the institutional racism, which includes systemic racism, when we look at health, education and child care. And then there is the structural racism that supports the racism in the systems. That institutional racism still exists today, but it’s now more subtle.

When you look at reconciliation, how can we have reconciliation when this is at the foundation of Canada and the way they do legislation, the way we do it and the way we understand? Looking at that and the different ways that the Métis and the First Nations were allowed to live in Canada, there were different types of institutional racism. That brought out a fracture between First Nations and Métis that still exists today.

We are related because the matriarch of the Métis is a First Nations woman. When we look at what is rightly ours, what is the jurisdictional rights bearing? What are the harvesting laws? What are the inherent rights? They are different for both groups because the First Nations were here pre-contact, since time immemorial, and the Métis after contact. What does that mean? How do the rights we are asking for impact one another?

I guess this is my plea for us to act together, because dividing has not resolved the issue. I’m appealing to leaders to start working together. I’m glad you are looking at working with the chiefs of Ontario. I’m very impressed, President Chartrand, with the work you have done. That’s what I meant: Canada doesn’t know the Métis Nation. Looking at that institutional racism that exists and how it has pitted us against one another, is there a way out? That question is for both of you.

Mr. Awashish: Different organizations and governments have been studying this question for many years. Concerning how we felt it and how we lived it, we were put in reservations so they could take over the land and natural resources. Everybody prospered from that except us. That’s what happened.

Maybe some good came from it. For example, in my nation, 90% of the people speak our language. When you come to our community, the kids speak our language at home, when they play outside and when they go to school. Maybe that’s a good thing.

But the bad thing is that they are connected to television, internet, phones and tablets and all that. They see who they are not. They realize, “We were put on a reservation; we are in a precarious situation, with a lack of housing and a mental health situation that is difficult.” Also, they realize they were not treated the right way for many years and why they are in a poor situation right now. It kind of affects the general population.

Half of my people are 25 and under right now. And we have a lot of problems with school graduation rates. We work hard to help them realize that they need to go to school so they can better their lives, better defend their rights and create jobs or become entrepreneurs.

That’s the challenge we have as Atikamekw Nation. I always give this example to Quebecers: In Quebec, there was a period called the Quiet Revolution. In Quebec, before the 1960s, the French people were poor and the English people were rich. After the 1960s, they nationalized many things and improved their way of life, their well-being. That’s what we are trying to do. We are so behind. When we say “closing the gap,” that’s what it is — closing the gap. This is due to and caused by systemic racism. We didn’t have to be put on reservations. There was a strategy to take over the land.

In Quebec, unlike in other places — except B.C. — there was no treaty. We never surrendered. We never gave up our land. We have never been conquered by war. That has been recognized by international law. So this is our land, but we still have difficulties being respected by the province and the government on this issue. So the day that the government understands and recognizes that is the day we can start to talk about reconciliation.

Real reconciliation is not just a word. With real reconciliation, we will be able to sit down together and create something — a treaty, paper or agreement where you do this, you do that and we work together on the management of the land and natural resources. That’s what we are trying to work toward; we have been doing so since 1979. It is kind of difficult because that’s where we always face a wall: talking about natural resources and land.

I think this has been a very interesting panel this morning. We don’t really have these issues with “pretenders” — I don’t know what to call them.

Mr. Chartrand: You will. They are coming.

Mr. Awashish: But we know who the Atikamekw are. We know Atikamekw people who left 100 years ago. We still have contact with them and know where their families are. They are Atikamekw in our eyes. The concept of Métis was not really a concern for us for many years — or for me personally, anyway. Now it is coming up more.

Listening to Mr. Chartrand this morning, listening at the UN in past weeks, all the identity theft is very concerning for me. I’m trying to figure it out as well — the difference is between First Nations, Aboriginals and the Métis. I know Red River Métis have a particular history, and we need to recognize that. They went to war. They mingled with the Crees back in the day and created the Métis history and Métis Nation. I’m trying to figure out how things are working with this. But for me, it is clear you are a First Nation. You have rights on the land. You have rights to natural resources and territory. That’s what we need to work toward for reconciliation, to make sure that provinces understand that we are future workforces and entrepreneurial businesses. That’s where they need to invest in First Nations. Like I said, half of our population is 25 and under. We have a lot of social problems. But if they don’t work —

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. We have a hard stop at eleven o’clock and I want Mr. Chartrand to provide a bit of an answer.

Mr. Chartrand: Are you going to end this? This is a good discussion we’re having here. This is a lot of fun. You have to invite me and Constant back.

First, that’s a very good question and very good analysis. It really captured your message about how we were treated differently, and how that made us treat each other differently and fight each other. I really like the analogy you just made. You are absolutely right: We are a maternal nation. Our mothers were First Nation. Our fathers were from overseas and most of them left — leaving us on the Prairies. At one time, to be honest with you, some used to call us the “bastards of the plains” because we had no dads at that time and were left to fend for ourselves. Thank God for our Indian mothers who raised and developed us.

But on the other side, the First Nations didn’t want us either, because we now looked different. We came with different-coloured hair, eyes and complexions. So Indian mothers were so strong and brave to raise a people that became a culture and identity with our own history, beadwork, music, language — Michif — and so on. I speak Saulteaux fluently because of where I come from. When you look at that history — in Manitoba, I have been trying desperately for years now to work toward treaties between ourselves and First Nations. I said, “Today, we talk and brag about our degrees on the walls and all these different accolades we have accomplished in education and so forth, some being lawyers and some not.” I said, “We look back in our history at our leaders: First Nation chiefs, Red River Métis, Louis Riel.” Riel defended First Nations because they are our families and relatives. At one time in Manitoba, there were 12,000 people and 10,000 of them were Métis. We were the power force of the Prairies. We were the military force and protected the Prairies. When the Irish were coming from the United States to plant their flag on the Prairies and declare it as United States soil, who was there? The Red River Métis, ready to go to war. We made it very clear: If they crossed the border and came to war with us, we would go to war with them.

So, when you look at the history of who we were and what needs to be done, I say to some of the chiefs back home — I have very smart chiefs back home. We always talk about how they could have had these relationships in the past, in the 1800s. Back and forth, the First Nations and Métis had a good relationship. The Blackfoot in Alberta, for example, were very well known as military fighters. Métis had a very strong relationship. It’s how we got around that without interfering in jurisdictions.

So, looking at history and our ability to have our own treaties, I think that’s long overdue. I think it has to come forward. But it’s going to take us as leaders to get there. We need signed treaties with one other, to recognize each other’s position and coexist territorially — because, like First Nations, we have the right to natural resources. We won that at the Supreme Court of Canada. We have a land claim we are negotiating with Canada right now. We won that in 2013.

When you look at what needs to take place, we truly need to recognize — and Senator McCallum is absolutely right: Canada treats us differently, and that forces us to fight. Canada will put up funding lasting maybe a year or two, some for First Nations and some for us. And then it is gone. There should be permanent funding that no government can ever take away from us, and then we can have a true plan. Do you want us to solve the problem? You are damn right we will. But just give us the tools and leave it at that. If the government changes, does that mean all the funding starts being cut, everything starts disappearing and we have to start over again, losing all the work you are doing and all the work we are doing? There should be a demand for permanent funding that cannot be touched by any government, no matter who gets in.

So, you hit the nail on its head: We are a maternal nation. Over 70% of my cabinet are women. I have 1,200 employees across the province; over 70% of them are women. My top management is all women. We have never had the problems in Canada where you try to figure out how to get more women into politics and elsewhere, to get equality in pay and so on. We don’t have those problems because we are a maternal nation. To us, it’s automatic. We didn’t need to consider ways to hire more women or place more women in political positions.

To conclude, looking at our culture, people come to study us and ask us, “How did you get so many women into politics?” It is natural to us. Women have a very powerful role. We are a maternal nation. I was a mama’s boy and am still one today.

From that perspective, I think we have a good task ahead of us, but I encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing. That’s what the Senate is: You’re the watchdog. You’re the ones who are supposed to watch the guys in that big building over there so they don’t forget their responsibilities and what they were elected to do, which is to represent the rules and rights of Indigenous peoples in this country. That’s what UNDRIP is all about.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chartrand, for that. I’m going to Senator Arnot so he can ask his question, but I’ll ask witnesses to give your answers in writing, because we’re out of time.

Senator Arnot: Thank you very much. I’ll get right to the question.

Grand Chief, you talked about education, and I agree with you on that. This question is for both President Chartrand and Grand Chief Awashish. I believe in the power of education, and I think the lack of education is an impediment to reconciliation. It is also a serious impediment to the implementation of the UNDRIP Act.

Political will is directly related to the understanding that the general population in Canada has. I don’t think many adult Canadians would understand the uniqueness of the Red River Métis. Similarly, the grand chief has talked about the lack of understanding. I believe adult Canadians are awash in an ocean of non-understanding.

Education is under provincial control. We must have strong education on these issues in order to promote both the implementation of the UNDRIP Act and reconciliation. That lack of education is a serious impediment.

I would like you to answer, if you would, with what you would recommend in terms of education since it is in the hands of the provinces — although there are things the federal government could do with Heritage Canada. What comments would you make about that important issue? It’s constant in the sense of always being the issue. Political will won’t move forward if the citizens aren’t in agreement — and citizens have virtually no understanding of the issues you’re talking about.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Arnot. We’ll send you a copy of the transcript so you’ll have the question in order to answer.

With that, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank you both for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please feel free to do so within seven days.

Before we adjourn, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the members of the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society who have been seated in the public gallery during our meeting today. Thank you for joining us, and thank you for the important work you do for our people.

(The committee adjourned.)