State of the Nation Address

Transcription

1 State of the Nation Address President Clément Chartier Métis National Council General Assembly Calgary, Alberta June 6, 2015 Members of the General Assembly. This year s General Assembly takes on special importance in view of developments during the past few days. On Thursday the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affairs came to the MNC Board of Governors meeting to announce the appointment of a special representative on reconciliation with the Métis Nation. We are entering into a new era based on the principle that the sovereignty of Canada should be reconciled with the rights and interests of the Métis Nation. The federal recognition of the need for reconciliation with the Métis people responds to our longstanding struggle to assert our role as one of the founding nations of Canada, with rights and interests inherent in that status. We assumed this role through the immense contribution our ancestors made to the economic development of western Canada as the backbone of the fur trade economy. And to the political development of western Canada through the Métis provisional governments of Louis Riel in Manitoba in and Saskatchewan in 1885 that brought responsible government to the west. By force of arms and provisional governments, our nationalist movement pressured Canada into dealing with us as a founding people, albeit reluctantly and with great hostility. Through negotiations leading to the Manitoba Act of 1870, the first of these governments negotiated the admission of the Red River Settlement into Confederation as the then Métis-majority province of Manitoba, as well as the admission of the rest of the western-based Métis Nation homeland. Through the Manitoba Act and the Dominion Lands Act of 1879 covering the rest of what are today the prairie provinces and the NWT, the federal government provided for Métis land grants that were supposed to secure our place in Canada. We know that the failure of these land grant schemes caused the dispossession, displacement, and dispersion of our people.

2 2 As the Supreme Court ruled in the MMF land claim case on March 8, 2013, Canada assumed solemn constitutional obligations under the Manitoba Act to see to it that the children of the Métis heads of family were provided land and the federal government knew or should have known that the ten year delay in the distribution of these lands would lead to Métis displacement. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the issuance of scrip to the Métis of the Northwest further to the Dominion Lands Act, a system we all know was rife with fraud and speculation, was a sorry chapter in the history of Canada. Reconciliation springs from the need to respond to this egregious failure to secure the lands of the Métis people who, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in the Blais decision, were Canada s negotiating partners in bringing the west into Confederation. It must aim for reconciling the sovereignty of Canada with a secure place for the Métis as a distinct people and nation within the Canadian federation. A major stumbling block in this regard is the question of federal jurisdiction in its relationship with the Métis under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act The failure of successive federal governments to accept primary responsibility for dealing with the Métis Nation has made it impossible to deal with the outstanding land and constitutional claims of our people. Our people, except for those in the Northwest Territories, have been excluded from the federal government s specific and comprehensive land claims policies. In fact, since the recognition of the Métis as one of the three Aboriginal peoples with existing Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act in 1982, the only constitutionally protected Métis rights that the federal government has meaningfully recognized have been harvesting rights as a result of the Powley decision in 2003, and the Morin and Daigneault SK QB 1997 decision before that. This situation may be in the process of changing. The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled in the Daniels case that Métis do fall within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24). Moreover, it ruled that the inclusion of Métis under 91(24) is limited to the historical Métis population identified in earlier Supreme Court rulings such as Powley, Cunningham and MMF v Canada. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples which will hear the case in October.

3 3 A decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the appeal court decision will help sort out the respective roles of the federal and provincial governments for dealing with us and clearly establish primary federal responsibility. The federal government has also been indicating a potential shift in its longstanding exclusion of the Métis from its claims resolution policies. In July 2014, Minister Valcourt announced the appointment of Douglas Eyford as a Ministerial Special Representative to lead engagement with Aboriginal peoples to renew and reform the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, as part of a new framework for addressing Section 35 Aboriginal rights. The MNC and a number of our Governing Members met with Mr. Eyford to press for our inclusion in the new policy. In my meeting with Mr. Eyford, I did not get the impression he would be recommending our inclusion in the new federal policy. At the same time, he indicated an interest and willingness to address our rights issues and concerns. Moreover, Mr. Eyford observed that many of the building blocks for addressing Métis s.35 rights were in place by virtue of the Métis Nation Protocol, which provides for regular meetings with the Minister, an agenda including Métis Aboriginal rights and a requirement for an accountability report to be posted on AANDC and MNC websites. He suggested that a table could be set up within this context to pursue the resolution of Métis s. 35 rights. In February 2015, Mr. Eyford reported to Minister Valcourt who subsequently on April 2, 2015 publicly released that Report. While he did not include the Métis in the proposed new policy, Mr. Eyford observed that Canada must do more in its relationship with the Métis to ensure their section 35 rights are appropriately recognized and can be meaningfully exercised. He said the Métis Nation Protocol provides a starting point for the continued development of this relationship. He then went on to recommend the following: Canada should develop a reconciliation process to support the exercise of Métis section 35(1) rights and to reconcile their interests; and Canada should establish a framework for negotiations with the Manitoba Métis Federation to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada s decision in Manitoba Métis Federation v. Canada, 2013.

4 4 On March 17, 2015, Minister Valcourt met with the MNC Board of Governors and indicated that, while the new federal policy would not apply to Métis, the government was committed to moving ahead with us on ensuring that Métis could exercise s.35 rights. Under questioning, he told the Board that the federal government did not see Métis rights as being lesser to those of First Nations or Inuit but that the unique circumstances of the Métis called for a distinct process and likely, distinct accommodations. He committed to coming back to the MNC Board within three months to discuss a specific proposal in this regard. The next day, Minister Valcourt and I signed the Canada-MNC Métis Economic Development Accord at the third Métis Economic Development Symposium or MEDS III in Winnipeg. In his address to the Symposium, Minister Valcourt emphasized that the government was committed to respecting Métis s.35 rights and strongly supported reconciliation measures that promoted tangible economic outcomes and job creation. The five year economic development accord commits the parties to develop a strategy alongside industry and the provinces to implement the four priorities of Métis business development, participation in major resource development projects, labour force development and strengthening Métis institutions to advance economic development. Further to his commitment to the Board, the Minister s office developed a proposal in consultation with my office on first steps on reconciliation consistent with Mr. Eyford s recommendations. This proposal centered on the appointment of a Minister s Special Representative, whose mandate will be to provide recommendations on frameworks to address Métis s.35 rights and for addressing s.31 rights under the Manitoba Act further to the Supreme Court of Canada decision. These would be done in the same report, but kept distinct. The Special Representative will engage with the MNC and its Governing Members and their institutions, Métis Settlements, Provinces and the federal government with respect to s.35 reconciliation and with the MMF on a framework for negotiations RE: MMF v Canada. The Special Representative will provide a final report by December 15/2015 on items for negotiation with as much consensus as possible.

5 5 The Federal Cabinet and the MNC and Governing Members will then respond to the Special Representatives recommendations and a more specific process of negotiations would follow pending authorization and willingness by the respective parties. Two weeks ago the MNC Board of Governors adopted a motion supporting this proposal. Two days ago, Minister Valcourt as promised, joined our Board meeting here in Calgary to announce the appointment of Mr. Thomas Isaac as the Minister s Special Representative on reconciliation with the Métis Nation. Mr. Isaac joined us at the Minister s announcement. He is a nationally recognized authority in the area of Aboriginal law and leads the Aboriginal Law Group at the law firm Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. He regularly negotiates on behalf of industry and governments in respect of impact, benefit and access agreements with Aboriginal groups, and he advises on Aboriginal consultation and accommodation processes and agreements. His published works on Aboriginal law have been cited with approval by Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. He is a former Chief Treaty Negotiator for the Government of British Columbia and former Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for establishing Nunavut for the Government of the Northwest Territories. He also served in a senior capacity with the Government of Saskatchewan dealing with Aboriginal issues. He is very knowledgeable on Métis rights, having written a book on the subject. So we are hopeful that with this experience and expertise, he will prove successful in fulfilling his mandate. Without a doubt, we are heading into new unknown territory which presents us with great opportunities as well as immediate challenges. The terms of reference for the Special Representative are very broad and we are trying to elaborate on them as much as possible to facilitate progress consistent with our objectives. We are proposing that the key elements of the Metis Nation Accord, that was approved in principle in 1992 by the federal government, the five Provinces and Métis Nation governments but did not finalize because of the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord in Canada s October 1992 national referendum, could be used as part of the framework for the s.35 reconciliation process.

6 6 That Accord included matters such as recognizing and supporting the Métis Nation citizenship and registry system, the nature and scope of negotiation processes for selfgovernment and lands and resources, and financial arrangements to support Métis governments and institutions. It had the support of the Mulroney government in Ottawa and the five provinces, which as Minister Valcourt reminded us in his meetings with us, will be important in dealing with matters largely under provincial control. This is just one of the many ideas that will be surfacing as we get deeper into reconciliation talks. What we must now confront is the reality that the federal government is developing a pathway and game plan for dealing with us. The question is whether we have a clear pathway and game plan for dealing with them. Are we ready to assume new powers and responsibilities that may result from the reconciliation process? If we expect to negotiate some form of self-government agreement, we must strengthen Métis government in its current form. We need a constitution rather than the antiquated bylaws of non-profit corporations and societies. The resolution on Métis Nation Governance adopted by the MNC General Assembly in 2010 called for a new modern Constitution as an expression of self-determination and self-government. It set out a detailed process of consultations which we acted on toward the adoption of a Métis Nation Constitution by Though we were able to develop a draft constitution that captured most of the key elements with consensus, we stopped short in its adoption as a result of an impasse on a few issues. This is unfortunate since the draft largely agreed to builds on our well established governance system of democratic accountability, ballot box elections and our citizenship system. Such a constitution would set the stage for our governments to acquire powers and responsibilities through negotiations with the federal government, starting with the full devolution of the Métis portion of federal Aboriginal programs and services currently available to Métis, and the fiscal transfers appropriate for a government to operate.

7 7 The 2010 resolution of this assembly stated that upon adoption of a Métis Nation Constitution, the Métis Nation further pursue self-determination by working toward the passing of a Canada - Métis Nation Relations Act by the Parliament of Canada which recognizes the right of our people to govern ourselves under our own Métis Nation Constitution. In fact, with the current reconciliation process and the strong possibility of the Supreme Court upholding the Daniels decision that the federal government has jurisdictional or legislative authority for dealing with the Métis, we find ourselves never better placed to press for federal enabling legislation on self-government. Completing our work on the constitution will demonstrate our political will to be selfgoverning and strengthen our hand in negotiations. There are other ways for us to strengthen our Métis government in its current form. We have not yet implemented the resolution of the 2002 General Assembly calling for the direct election of MNC president in a homeland-wide ballot box election. Nor have we completed the work on citizenship envisaged by the 2002 General Assembly. Our citizenship system has been strengthened recently by the completion of work of the MNC and Governing Members with the Canadian Standards Association that has certified and published the common standards used by our registries. And it should be noted that the Minister s Special Representative has been mandated to deal exclusively with the MNC, its Governing Members and the Métis Settlements on Métis reconciliation which in itself is a step forward in the recognition of Métis identity rooted in its historical homeland. A word of caution here. While well-intentioned, the Minister s use of the term, the Powley Métis, in identifying who will participate in this reconciliation process, is not completely accurate. Let us not forget that our National Definition of Métis which we use to identify and register our citizens was adopted a year before the Powley decision. In Powley, the Supreme Court of Canada was validating our National Definition. No outside government or court, regardless of how sympathetic, should ever be allowed to determine who we are. We the Métis define ourselves and we do so as the historic Métis Nation.

8 8 And as the historic Métis Nation, we must complete the national acceptance process and the integration of our registries so that citizenship does not stop at a provincial boundary within our homeland. By acting on these governance and nationhood matters in a pro-active and timely manner, this will also make it clear that those fly-by-night, bogus organizations cropping up around the country purporting to represent our people, in fact do not! Another key area where our current governments must be strengthened is finances. Under the Métis Nation Protocol, my senior policy advisors and the executive directors of the Governing Members, meet regularly with the Associate Deputy Minister and two Assistant Deputy Ministers from AANDC. Our officials have been pressing the case for moving federal funding for the registries, economic development and the tripartite process out of a pan-aboriginal project funding pool and into a dedicated form of Métis-specific funding. At the same time, the MNC and its Governing Members have been concerned by the increased micro-management of ASETS by Employment and Social Development Canada. The huge success of this employment and training program was built on the devolution of the program to current Aboriginal ASETS holders in 1996 and the flexibility they had in applying the resources to the critical and strategic needs of their clients. The Métis endowment funds, which are a vital source of funding for Métis postsecondary students, speak to the success of the autonomy that Métis ASETS holders had previously enjoyed. Last week, the MNC sponsored a very productive conference of Métis and First Nations ASETS holders on the future of the program. Under questioning from ASETS holders on the increased difficulties they are having with the department, the director generals from Employment and Social Development Canada stated that they were hiring more financial officers with an assurance that they would be there to help the ASETS holders. We know from experience that the principal beneficiaries of this employment will be the federal bureaucrats themselves, consuming large sums of the program funding on their own administration and bogging the operations of the ASETS holders down in increased reporting. This situation is unacceptable.

9 9 One of the schedules to the Métis Nation Protocol, the Governance and Financial Accountability Accord which Minister Valcourt and I signed in 2013, does provide for predictable and flexible financing for the MNC by way of block funding. The Accord also strengthened financial accountability so that we could be accountable for this improved means of financing to our own electorate rather than federal bureaucrats. The implementation of block funding which is a government-to-government form of financing was supposed to take effect last fiscal year but was delayed. I will be pressing the Minister to honor his government s commitment to block funding, for those Métis governments desiring it, as a demonstration of good faith in the overall reconciliation process. I believe that all federal funding of Métis Nation governments, whether it be from Aboriginal Affairs Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, or other departments, should be rolled into predictable government-to-government block funding transfers. Métis Nation governments should be accountable for this funding to their own electors and they should have the flexibility to spend according to their own priorities as long as overall objectives are met. Another way for the Minister to demonstrate good faith in the reconciliation process is to provide proper resourcing for Métis participation in reconciliation comparable to that enjoyed by other Aboriginal peoples under the comprehensive claims policy. And last but certainly not least, the reconciliation process should deal with the effects of the marginalization and assault on our identity that followed our displacement from our lands, in particular providing reconciliation for the Métis survivors of residential schools. Having been excluded from the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which reported this week on its work on behalf of Indian residential school survivors, we should strive to impress upon the Minister s Special Representative the need for Canada to finally address and redress the experiences of survivors of the Church-run schools for Métis. And for the current federal government that has taken it upon itself to promote a better understanding of Canadian history through commemorative events, reconciliation with the Métis Nation should ensure that Canada marks the commemoration of our role as a founding nation by supporting events such as the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Seven Oaks in 2016, the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Manitoba Act in 2020 and the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Northwest Resistance and Battle of Batoche in 2035.

10 10 And to support the development, expansion and promotion of our Métis Nation heritage sites such as Métis Crossing, Batoche, the National Métis Museum in Winnipeg, and sites that have not yet been developed. In closing, I would like to point again to the great significance of this year s General Assembly. Like the 2002 General Assembly in advance of the Powley decision, this assembly, in advance of the reconciliation process and the Daniels decision, is vested with a rare opportunity to speak to and influence what may very well be monumental changes in the way we act as a government and deal with other governments. I hope you will be taking advantage of this historic opportunity by fully participating in this year s agenda item discussions of the issues just raised. It is our people; our nation; our future! Only we, the Métis Nation s leadership, can make our people s aspirations, rights and existence as a distinct, proud, productive and enduring nation a reality. We have all been elected and given a sacred trust to achieve that reality. Let us today rededicate our collective efforts to fulfill this sacred trust! Marsi