SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Ontario Assembly

43rd Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 09:00AM
  • May/9/23 9:10:00 a.m.
  • Re: Bill 71 

It’s good to engage with my brother in the House. I completely agree, and I think the Minister of Mines would agree also, how important it is that we do proper Indigenous consultation—I don’t have that exact definition here in front of me.

I was wondering if the member could comment for a moment on how important it is that we share the wealth of the land with Indigenous peoples and how important it is that we work together for the long-term prosperity—not just for Ontario; indeed, for the entire world—with the resource extraction that we can do up north and what that could potentially do for the Indigenous territories in his riding.

It has been interesting listening to debate. I haven’t heard a lot of negatives from the opposition—other than the need for good consultation. I know we have a strong commitment from our minister in order to make sure that happens, and I understand those concerns completely.

When this came, we saw the opposition supporting this on a voice vote on second reading. Of course, it went to a full vote. I believe this legislation will be coming up for a vote, if not today, in the next couple of days.

I was wondering if I could ask the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, knowing the importance of the benefits that this can have for Indigenous peoples across the province of Ontario, if he will be voting in favour of the legislation when it comes for a vote.

257 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:40:00 a.m.
  • Re: Bill 71 

Remarks in Anishininiimowin.

Good morning. It’s always an honour to be able to rise and speak for the people of Kiiwetinoong—but also to be able to speak on Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act.

I hear talk about jobs. I hear talk about economic prosperity. And I know that to open up mines faster, without talking to all First Nations, contravenes the duty to consult—the free, prior, informed consent. I know this government is taking the same approach that has been done for hundreds of years.

When settlers first arrived, the first thing that they did was take our lands. And the second thing that they did is, they took away our children to Indian residential schools, to kill the Indian in the child.

The colleagues across the way do not understand what the land means for the First Nations in Kiiwetinoong. The land is where we get our language. For me, that’s where I learned my language—growing up on the land. The ways of life that we do come from the land. The identity comes from the land. The ways of being come from the land. The history comes from the land. And the gifts that are on the lands were given to us the by Gitchi Manitou, the Creator, and those are called “inherent rights.” That is something that we have as First Nations people, as Nishnawbe people.

It’s not about jobs. When the Hudson’s Bay Co. arrived in the north, they promised economic prosperity. They promised that if we went trapping—“You will have a livelihood if you bring the furs for us.” They told us everything. That’s what settlers do. Settler governments do that, institutions. Right now, today, you cannot even live off being a trapper in the north.

Again, inherent rights—the right to language, the right to way of life, a way of being, identity, history and the gifts that we have on these lands. And if you’re going to change the ways of life forever without proper consultation—because you’re not talking to all First Nations affected; you’re just talking to certain First Nations that are willing to work with you. When you do that, you’re dividing and conquering First Nations. It has been done for hundreds of years. That type of work, that type of play, is from the colonial playbook. There is a playbook on how you work with First Nations, how to be colonial. It was written in 1956, by an official from Indigenous affairs. There’s a playbook; it’s about eight pages long. That’s exactly what’s going on here. You make it sound so—“Got to be prosperous.”

Yesterday, I heard multiple members talking about treaty rights in relation to this bill and how the bill doesn’t impact treaty rights. But it’s hard to understand what treaty rights mean if you’re not a treaty person. I have treaty rights. It means to be able to practise my ways of life, fishing and hunting on my traditional territories, on those treaty territories.

One example that happens every year, if you’re First Nations and you’re in a particular treaty area—for example, I’m Treaty 9—is that the government of Canada makes treaty payments. Do you know how much? Four dollars per year for accessing my land, for signing the treaty in 1905, for signing the treaty in 1929. Different treaties have different amounts. The fulfillment of treaty provisions is a legal obligation of governments who sign treaties. Ontario is a signatory to Treaty 9. Out of the number of treaties, 1 to 11, Treaty 9 is the only numbered treaty that has a province’s signature on it, and that’s Ontario.

I know that there were some members from the government side that spoke on how this legislation does not change the obligations that exist under the treaties with First Nations or the duty to consult. But if a government has gotten away without ever fulfilling its treaty obligations under a treaty, then the bar to meet treaty obligations is very low. The bar for this government to meet treaty obligations is very low, at best, and at worst, non-existent.

I know that on April 26, leadership from Treaty 9 territory came to Queen’s Park to announce a historic court case against the federal government and also the provincial government. The case says that the actual treaty agreed to by the First Nations in Treaty 9 and the crown was that First Nations would retain the decision-making governance over the lands and resources and that the crown would have some governance rights but not the right to take over. What was agreed to was co-jurisdiction or parallel consent—both First Nations and the crown have to consent to developments and activities on Treaty 9 lands, on Treaty 9 territory.

I’m going to share a quote from Attawapiskat First Nation Chief Sylvia Koostachin-Metatawabin: “Back when Treaty 9 was signed, Canada and Ontario made a written text of Treaty 9 on their own, in their headquarters, before ever talking to us First Nations. They then came to talk to us and made promises and commitments to us orally that we agreed to. This oral agreement is not the written text.

“After they got us to sign”—

903 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 9:40:00 a.m.
  • Re: Bill 71 

The natural resources of northern Ontario have played a key role in the economy of Ontario, and our government recognizes the generational opportunities that exist.

What will this act do for northern and Indigenous communities specifically?

36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 3:20:00 p.m.
  • Re: Bill 71 

It’s so good to hear the support from the member from Guelph on this bill. I’ve had those conversations with him for the last few years on how critical it is to expand the battery and electric vehicle market in Ontario and the necessity of the resources that we can source from Ontario for these.

I’m curious, though, and this is something that I think is a province-wide issue: When we’re having those conversations and discussions with Indigenous territories that are directly impacted by this, how far out should that net go? Is it just any Indigenous territory in the province of Ontario? Is it just directly those whose traditional lands are in that area?

I was just wondering if the member had any advice for us on exactly what that consultation should look like within that spirit of reconciliation.

145 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 3:50:00 p.m.
  • Re: Bill 71 

Unfortunately, I’m going to break the trend, my friend. It was going so great with the French, but I’m not capable of doing that.

You definitely talked a lot about environmental protections and effects on First Nations. We know that First Nations have been left behind for decades under several governments: lack of clean drinking water, lack of proper housing, environmental issues. We’re seeing this government consistently undermine our environmental statuses, and then we see the travel of this bill take it to two communities that aren’t as heavily affected by the mines and no consultation with Indigenous communities.

Can you maybe talk about the fact of why the government would avoid going to communities that would be directly affected by these mines?

127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border