Ontario First Nations chiefs protest federal Mtis self-government bill

Ontario First Nations leaders held a protestMonday on Parliament Hill against proposed federal legislation to implementa self-government agreement between Canada and the Mtis Nation of Ontario (MNO), which is expectedto be tabled this week.

The Chiefs of Ontario (COO) ramped up a campaign last week against thepromisedbill, landing in Ottawa Sunday to urge politicians not to unanimously consent to its swift passage through the House of Commons.

The COO, an umbrella organization for 133 First Nations, disputes the authenticity of some communities the MNO represents, particularly in eastern Ontario, arguing they rely on re-casting First Nations ancestors of mixed race as belonging to a distinct Mtis Nation.

"We have been very clear that our central issue is not that we reject all Mtis or Mtis rights," Nipissing First Nation Chief Scott McLeod told reporters.

"The issue is that the communities represented by the MNO did not exist historically and cannot be Section 35 [constitutional]rights holders."

The MNO, the Mtis Nation of Albertaand the Mtis NationSaskatchewansigned updated self-government agreements with Canada in February that recognizedthemas Indigenous governments with jurisdiction over internal affairs.

The bill expected to be tabled this week would implement those agreements. It was scheduled for introduction in the House of Commons Monday afternoon after question periodbut was delayed without explanation.

Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller has said theMNO agreement doesn't concern land rights and can't be interpreted as harming First Nations. The chiefs, however, weren't buying that interpretation.

"This legislation is talking about treaties with the MNO and, simply put, we just won't have it," saidJason Batise, executive director of the Wabun Tribal Council in northeastern Ontario, which has filed a court challenge against the MNO agreement.

"Treaty, to me, is land."

MNO responds

The MNOresponded to the campaignMonday morning with a news release accusing the First Nations of "Mtis denialism."

The MNO said there wasan era of warmer relations following the landmark 2003 Powley ruling, which affirmed Mtis harvesting rights in and around Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., but that changed following the election of "less forward-looking" chiefs.

"For certain First Nation Chiefs to now claim they 'don't know us,' 'we do not exist,' and that 'we don't have rights,' is plainly false," the statement said.

"These new political positions are the very definition of revisionist history and lateral violence."

McLeod rejected the allegation.

"That's totally false. We're not trying to deny the existence of Mtis people. We never were," he told CBC News.

"This is not about lateral violence. This is about making sure we know who we're talking about."

Debate overMtis identity

Underlying the dispute is a deeply divisive debate about the definition of Mtis identity, citizenship and nationhood. In 2017, the Ontario government and the MNO announced the new identification of six Mtis communities throughout the province, extending the Mtis homeland up to the Ontario-Quebec border.

The Manitoba Mtis Federation, representing the Red River Mtis,rejected the announcement, sparking its eventual withdrawal from the Mtis National Council in 2021.

MMF President David Chartrand told CBC News last month he supports the Wabun Tribal Council, and the federation issued a lengthy statement to that effect on Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Wabun Tribal Council'scourt challenge attempting to nullify the MNO agreement hasexpanded since it was filed.

The Robinson Huron Waawiindimaagewin, the Mtis Nation of Alberta, the Anishinabek Nation and Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have all expressed intention to intervene, while the Wabun Tribal Council has filed for an injunction blocking Miller from implementing the deal.

A judge, however, refused to hear it until the MNO presents its motion to dismiss the case entirely.In court filings, the MNO's lawyer called the First Nations' arguments "very flawed" and "doomed to fail."

Miller has stood by the agreement and told the COOlast Thursday at its annual assembly that it's common for the federal government to speed bills dealing with Indigenous self-government through the House of Commons because members of Parliament should be wary of debating how other peoples run their affairs.

"I will confess to you that we are looking at options to move this legislation forward expeditiously," Miller said, adding that the final decision hadn't been made.

"I have not committed to forcing this through Parliament. I certainly do not have that power. I am not at all excluding that there will be a debate in committee and by extension in the Senate."