Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 38 - Evidence - June 5, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:47 p.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web.
My name is Vernon White, from Ontario. I am chair of the committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation in matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. From time to time we invite individuals, organizations and departments to give us an overview of issues of concern within their mandate.
In 2010, this committee released a report entitled The Journey Ahead: Report on progress since the Government of Canada's apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools. In the report, the committee expressed interest in remaining updated on the progress of this issue. As the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is coming to a close, we felt this would be a good time for a follow-up.
Today we will hear testimony from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to take the opportunity to ask members of the committee who are present this evening to introduce themselves.
Senator Dyck: I am Lillian Dyck, from Saskatchewan, and also an off-reserve member of the Gordon First Nation.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Senator Watt: Senator Watt, Nunavik.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
The Chair: Senators, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair; and Chief Wilton Littlechild, Commissioner.
Thank you very much for being here this evening.
Hon. Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, distinguished witnesses and guests. Present with me today is Commissioner Chief Wilton Littlechild. I bring regrets from Commissioner Dr. Marie Wilson, who is away on leave. It is a well-deserved leave, but nonetheless her thoughts and support are here with us.
I will begin by thanking you and the members of the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today. It has been more than two and a half years since I and my fellow commissioners, Dr. Wilson and Chief Littlechild, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I am honoured to provide a brief overview of the progress that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has made since then, as well as some of the challenges we face at this juncture of our court-ordered mandate.
When we last appeared before this committee in September of 2010, my colleagues and I had been working on behalf of the commission for little more than a year. Much of what we shared with you at that time had to do with the purpose and the inception of the commission and the historical and social context in which it had begun to carry out its work.
Time is limited, and I do not wish to repeat myself unduly. However, there are a couple of points I would like to emphasize by way of context for my further remarks.
First, I would like to remind you of the scope of the commission's mandate. It comes to us through the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement signed in 2007 by several parties, including the Government of Canada, Catholic and Protestant churches, and several signatories representing the residential schools survivors themselves. The TRC is authorized and required to inform all Canadians about the history and ongoing legacy of residential schools; to give an opportunity to all former students, staff and all those affected by the schools to participate in the telling of the history through national and community events and statement-gathering; to hold seven national public education and commemorative events as well as regional and community events; to collect every record that is relevant to the history and impact of the schools; to conduct original research that builds upon previous research and to prepare reports based on this work; to establish a national research centre that would make accessible to all Canadians all of the statements, research and other materials that have been collected by the commission; and last, but most important, to guide and inspire a process of healing and reconciliation within Aboriginal families and communities and between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country.
It is a vast mandate.
The second point I want to make by way of context is that our mandate is not optional. It is a court-ordered mandate, a legal obligation involving not only the commission but the parties to the settlement agreement as well. The agreement itself settled the largest class action suit in Canadian history. The survivors agreed to set aside $60 million of their compensation fund for the commission's purposes and to ask the commission to complete its work within five years.
The commission's mandate ends on July 1, 2014, just over one year from now.
That is our mandate. Let me tell you some of what the commission has done so far to discharge its obligations.
The responsibilities of the TRC are intertwined and overlapping. When we carry out one aspect of our mandate, we inevitably make progress on one or two others at the same time. For instance, our mandate to inform Canadians about the impact of the residential schools is carried out in large part by holding events at which we provide an opportunity for survivors of the schools to speak publicly about their experiences. Bearing witness to the truths expressed by survivors creates possibilities of reconciliation. It does not guarantee reconciliation, but we have seen that reconciliation does not stand a chance if it is not firmly rooted in a profound appreciation for the truths of others.
At the time the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement was signed, there were approximately 80,000 former students of the residential schools listed in the agreement still alive in Canada. Many were quite elderly. In the intervening years, that number has dropped by perhaps 10,000. Since its inception, the commission has been committed to providing every one of them and every other person whose life has been affected by the residential school system with the opportunity to create a record of their experience. To date, we have collected about 5,200 public and private statements. Most were provided by survivors of the schools themselves, but increasingly we have been hearing from the children of survivors and their children, the ones whose lives represent the legacy of the schools.
At an average length of 45 minutes to an hour, it would take about two and a half years for one person working full- time to view or listen to the statements we have gathered so far.
Commissioner Littlechild will continue.
Wilton Littlechild, Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Thank you very much and good evening to all honourable senators. I will continue with a report about our national events. We have had five national events to date. I want to recall, however, first, that each of the national events is based on a theme of one of our sacred teachings. In Winnipeg when we started it was about respect, and in Inuvik it was about courage. In Halifax, it was about love. In Saskatoon, it was about truth. Very recently, in Montreal, it was about humility.
We have also had two regional events, one in Victoria and another in Whitehorse. We have had 68 community hearings. A significant number of them were in the Far North. Two national events remain: the British Columbia national event, which will be held in Vancouver on September 18 to 21, and last, the Alberta national event, which will be held March 27 to 30 in Edmonton in 2014.
Leading up to these events, we expect to conduct another seven community hearings in both British Columbia and Alberta. We have plans for a closing event also here in Ottawa. By the time we have shut our doors, we anticipate that we will have gathered more than 6,000 statements. I do not want to get caught up endlessly in numbers either, but I want to be sure I have given you a proper sense of the scope and nature of the commission's efforts to date.
If you had attended the TRC's most recent national event in Quebec — perhaps I should pause and thank Senator Watt for being there in Montreal recently — your visit would have been one of 12,000 people over the course of the four days. You could have taken in more than 50 ceremonies, the early morning blessing by the eagles around a sacred fire, truth-sharing and educational activities, reconciliation activities and cultural performances. You could have sat at the back of a packed hall of over 500 grade 6 to 12 students from across Quebec and watched as they paid rapt attention to presentations and performances and to the opinions of their peers. You could have taken in a variety of films, from the acclaimed We Were Children by the National Film Board and Eagle Vision to a dozen short documentaries created by the young people through the Wapikoni project. You would have seen a very powerful display on the Indian residential schools called Red Memory. You could have witnessed the courageous public statements of dozens of survivors of the schools, some of them speaking publicly about their experiences for the very first time.
You could have watched the induction of eight new TRC honorary witnesses, including former Prime Minister Paul Martin and former hockey league star Joé Juneau. Former Prime Minister Joe Clark had joined the ranks of our honorary witnesses last year in Saskatoon. Our very first honorary witness was the former Governor General, Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean.
You could have witnessed 24 expressions of reconciliation from individuals, organizations, governments and churches. You could have taken part in a very moving birthday party for the hundreds of survivors who were present whose birthdays were never celebrated at residential schools. There were cupcakes and handmade cards, courtesy of children from the church congregations throughout the Montreal-Ottawa corridor.
More than 45 journalists registered to cover the Quebec national event. Live webcasting of the event attracted more than 6,700 streams to over 30 different countries. We have been aware from the outset of our work of the important international impact the commission could have and has been having. When the commission first began its work, the population of Quebec was relatively ill-informed about Canada's residential schools and their legacy. We believe we have turned that around.
I could share with you similar details from our other national and regional events, but that will suffice to give you some idea of our work. If you have not yet attended a TRC national event, I hope you will resolve to do so. In fact, I would invite you now for the Vancouver event and also the Edmonton event.
Mr. Sinclair: The TRC has collected 2.6 million documents from the Government of Canada and the churches to date. I know that the Government of Canada reported at its presentation to you a few weeks ago that it has provided us with 3.5 million documents, but our records show that some of those documents that they referenced are duplicates of each other. This is a large number but, as you know, it does not include any of the millions of documents relevant to residential schools that are currently housed by Library and Archives Canada.
You will be familiar with the Auditor General's recent comments regarding the inability of Canada and the commission to reach agreement on the scope of documents to be provided by Canada to the commission. I would like to acknowledge up front that the Government of Canada and the commission were not able to come to an agreement over the documents housed by Library and Archives Canada. This was a fundamental disagreement that went on too long. It was resolved in January of this year by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which upheld the commission's interpretation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
Now that the issue has been clarified, the TRC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Library and Archives Canada are working jointly to determine how and when the relevant documents will be produced to the commission. From the commission's perspective, there seems to be no lack of intention on the part of AANDC and LAC to follow through on Canada's legal commitments in this regard. However, the amount of work entailed and the amount of time remaining in the TRC's mandate present serious concerns to both Canada and the commission itself.
The fact that the TRC has not yet received the majority of the documents in Canada's possession has the potential to compromise the ability of the commission to comply with its mandate, as well as the quality and extent of the commission's research and final report.
With 13 months left in our mandate it is hard to imagine that the documents can be produced to us in time for them to contribute to this latter aspect of our mandate. We have met with Minister Valcourt on two occasions, and we continue to work closely with AANDC and LAC on a plan to secure relevant documents and to prepare them to be accessible to Canadians through the national research centre.
Mr. Littlechild: Despite the delays in document production to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we have undertaken a great deal of relevant research. Some of this was represented in our interim report and in our preliminary history of the schools, entitled They Came for the Children. Both were released in February of 2012. It will also be represented in our four-volume final report, which will address the work of the commission and its findings, the history of the residential schools, their legacy and the requirements and prospects for meaningful reconciliation.
I will mention one particular research project that has been ongoing for much of the commission's existence. That is the Missing Children Project. You may know that 150,000 Aboriginal children attended Canada's residential schools over a period of roughly 150 years. You may not know that thousands of them died at the schools and went missing. We have heard many testimonies. I personally heard from survivors who witnessed the deaths of some of these children — children burying children. Some of them died running away from schools. They drowned trying to cross rivers. They froze to death. In fact, last week I was shown a picture of four boys who had huddled together and froze to death not far from the school.
The commission has thus far identified and discovered details concerning 4,134 children who died at these schools or went missing from them. That number continues to grow as work on the project continues. Of course, it is of great interest to the families involved. More importantly, however, it allows us to discuss the impact of the schools on the daily lives of Aboriginal families in a manner that has deep emotional meaning for everyone.
Mr. Sinclair: Let me bring you up to date on the progress of the national research centre. The settlement agreement calls on the TRC to establish a national research centre within its five years of operation. Over the past two and a half years, the commission has taken a number of steps toward the centre's establishment, including a forum of international experts and a well-publicized call for expressions of interest. We received four expressions of interest from perspective host organizations, each with numerous partners, and are pursuing negotiations with the organization that best met our selection criteria.
I refer to the University of Manitoba and its eight proposed founding partners, which would be announced when all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. We anticipate a signing ceremony will be held later this month.
Finally, in the area of reconciliation, the commission has continually emphasized the importance of reconciliation being about establishing and maintaining a relationship of mutual respect. I have already referred to the dialogues we have held at our community, regional and national events with survivors and others in attendance. Those have generated significant discussion and interesting perspectives.
The commissioners have also engaged in such discussions with the parties to the settlement agreement at all-parties meetings we have been holding with them. We have spoken at numerous public and private conferences and gatherings with community, provincial and national leaders on the question of reconciliation.
One of the most significant ones was the annual gathering of the Council of Ministers of Education last July, where we emphasized the need to look seriously at curriculum changes in the field of public education, to teach children appropriately about the history of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada in order to lay the foundation for mutual respect in the future.
We asked the ministers to make a commitment to make those changes and followed that up with personal letters asking for updates following that meeting. Many have responded positively, and we look forward to meeting with them again later this year.
In addition, Lieutenant Governor David Onley of Ontario, Lieutenant Governor Philip Lee of Manitoba, Lieutenant Governor Graydon Nicholas of New Brunswick and then Lieutenant Governor Steven Point of British Columbia have all hosted TRC events, including dialogues on reconciliation with members of the public at their respective Government Houses. Our emphasis on reconciliation will continue to the end of our mandate.
This brings an end to our formal remarks. We look forward to your questions and your comments. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much to both of you. Those were excellent comments. I will ask Senator Dyck to begin.
Senator Dyck: Thank you so much for your presentations this evening. You have given us a lot of information to think about.
I am going to start with regard to the mandate. One question will be with respect to the documents, and the follow- up question will be with respect to healing.
With respect to the documents, you talked about the number of documents you expect to receive, and I presume those will be stored somehow at the national research centre, but with that amount of material it would seem to me that it is a huge amount of work to organize, to analyze, to summarize and to publicize. Will that assessment of documents comprise a major piece of work that the national research centre will undertake? Is there a mechanism in place to resource that kind of work?
Mr. Sinclair: The answer to the question is that it is a combined effort. It will need to be a combined effort on the part of the TRC, as well as the national research centre. The TRC's role, with regard to analyzing and organizing the documents we do receive, will be in order for us to be able to utilize what time is left to us to meet our objectives of completing the writing of our report. It is important for us to ensure that we have access to the information that is in the documents so that we are able to provide a full and complete history of residential schools in the country, and therefore accessing the documents for that purpose is important.
I think we also need to be able to access and organize the documents in order that we can assure ourselves that the documents we are receiving are as full and complete a collection of the relevant documents as we know and suspect are in the hands of both the Government of Canada and the churches and their archives. We need to be able to determine that assessment.
Our view is that the government and churches' obligation are to deliver the documents to the TRC. Technically, once they have done that, the work then falls on the TRC and on the national research centre, to the extent that we are able to come to a determination about how to leave that for them, to continue the work of analyzing and organizing the documents into the future.
We expect that most of the documents that will come to us will be coming to us in digitized format as opposed to being boxes. There will probably be some boxes of documents that we will receive. At this point in time, we do not know what that will be in terms of what is out there. We can tell you that for much of what we have seen up to this point in time in the archives of the churches that have provided us with documents, we have been allowed us the opportunity to have those documents digitized, for the most part. We think that the future archival records that we will be housed in the national research centre will be digitized documents. The originals of those documents will continue to remain where they currently are, in the archives of the churches and of government, so that if anyone needs to access the original, they will still be available in the original archive. However, we will have reasonable copies of each of them.
There is work to be done around that, but our effort will be to ensure, before our mandate is completed, that we have received all the relevant documents that we believe we are entitled to receive and that the parties are obligated to provide to us.
Senator Dyck: To follow up on that, do you see your mandate also covering organizing, analyzing and looking at those documents in order to educate the Canadian public? Do you think you need to have more than one year to finish the job with respect to your obligation regarding the documents? Do you believe there should be an extension of the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Mr. Sinclair: Everything depends upon what we are given. We do not know at this point in time, because we do not know what we will get. We have a pretty fair idea about a lot of documents that are in Library and Archives Canada because we have researchers advising us and people in the archive field advising us about what they know is there. We also know from the information we have gathered to this point in time, through other records, what we suspect is there. However, the volume of the material that is there is quite extensive. If we get all of the documents today, there is a serious question as to whether we can complete all of the analysis by the time our mandate expires in July of next year. It would depend on whether we are able to do enough of an analysis to be able to complete the report. If we are able to do that, then it is conceivable that we could leave the remaining work of analyzing, organizing and archiving the documents in the hands of the national research centre. We would need to be satisfied that we at least have access to the documents for the purpose of determining the important information that we need for our report.
Our report is already being drafted, as you might suspect. It is organized. We know what kinds of areas we will write about and what we want to write about, and we know what kinds of documents we need in order to be able to answer the many questions we have about those certain areas. We know where some of those documents are likely to be. Once we have determined whether they are there and what they say, if they are there, then we can write the report, and the remaining work concerning the archiving of the documents can be left in the hands of the NRC. It is a combined role, but a large amount of it is for us to do.
Senator Dyck: My final question is with respect to your mandate. You say it is a court-ordered mandate, and the last one you listed is to guide and inspire a process of healing and reconciliation within Aboriginal families and communities. Could you give examples of what you would consider, other than what you have said so far, with respect to what would be healing? Will you be making recommendations, for example, that there should be more programs to deal with some of the intergenerational impacts or the residual psychological trauma that accompanies the residential school legacy?
Mr. Sinclair: If you look carefully at our mandate, you will see, in fact, that our mandate does not specifically encompass the concept of healing. It is not in our title and it is not a specific, mandated objective of the work we are doing. Nonetheless, we have always taken the view that in order to address the issue of reconciliation properly, we really have to take seriously the whole question of healing, at a personal level, at a community level, at a tribal level, at a provincial level, as well as at a national level, because the history of residential schools in this country is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian problem. It is a problem for all of Canada to address. It is not just the Aboriginal children who went into those schools who have been damaged by what those schools were all about. All of Canada has been damaged by it, because those who went to the public school systems were taught about Aboriginal people and were taught that Aboriginal people and cultures and languages were inferior and that Aboriginal people were savages and were not worthy of being considered as equals. Because that was taught in the public schools, generation upon generation of non-Aboriginal children in this country have been raised to believe that Aboriginal people have been, were, and are inferior.
That also speaks to the fact that implicitly they have been taught to believe in their own superiority if they come from White European stock. They are not to blame for that. It is not like they are responsible for having created their own sense of self. However, that history in this country means that their perception of themselves, as the Aboriginal perception of themselves, has been damaged by this history. We need to correct those perceptions. We need to bring balance back to those perceptions.
The whole issue of healing is part of that dialogue around reconciliation. In the case of Aboriginal people who have come through the residential schools, there is no doubt they have been personally traumatized by many of the things they have experienced in the schools, whether directly or indirectly. About half of the people who have identified as survivors of residential schools have made claims for personal injuries as a result of being in the schools, but half have not. Even the half who have not made claims for personal injuries nonetheless do talk about the fact that in the schools they had a terrible sense of isolation, separation from their families, loss of intimacy and sense of love from their families. Living and being raised in an institutionalized environment damaged their sense of perception about family relationships, how to take care of themselves as individuals, how to take care of their children or how to take care of little children, how to be a proper parent, uncle, son and daughter. All of that perception of themselves was damaged significantly by the schools, even for those who were not physically or sexually abused within the school settings.
We need to understand that. That has contributed to a significant degree of dysfunction within Aboriginal communities. The harm it has created to non-Aboriginal people is that it has become in many ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. The government and the churches believed that Aboriginal people were inferior when they put them in the schools and then they created an environment in which they lived inferior existences when they came out of the schools. That needs to be changed. We need to change that first of all by understanding the truth. We cannot change history, but we can change two things about history: We can uncover it and we can understand from it. Those two things are very important for us to do at this point in time. That allows us to address the issue of reconciliation at the personal level so that survivors themselves can come to terms with what has happened to them, not just in terms of the injuries that they sustained and the damage that occurred to them physically, mentally and emotionally, but also it will allow them to address the issue of reconciliation within the family. That speaks to the issue of intergenerational survivors, too.
Intergenerational survivors used to tell us at the beginning of the work that they never went to a residential school, so they are not sure why residential schools were important for them to understand. However, when they realized that they have lost their language, that many of them do not know their culture or history, many of them have been raised in a dysfunctional family and community environment, and many of them, in fact, have grown up with an inferior sense of themselves and a lack of self-respect, they have come to realize, I think, through the public education processes that we have engaged in, that there is in fact a healing process that they also have to go through.
In the paper we presented to you, we talked about the importance of looking at mutual respect as the key to reconciliation. However, before we can have mutual respect between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, our view is that we have to engage in a process that allows for the establishment of self-respect for Aboriginal people in this country. That process involves ensuring that Aboriginal people have a proper education about who they are, about their own culture and history, and about their own people, so they know, in fact, when they are talking to the leaders across the table of Canadian and provincial governments, that they are talking from an equal footing.
Healing is a very complex and important process in the discussion and dialogue around reconciliation. I know that a lot of money is being spent through Health Canada and other programs that concentrate upon the healing of the individual, but it goes beyond that as well.
In our interim report, we made recommendations concerning the need for more and better mental health services for individuals who have been in residential schools, and we firmly believe that is very important, because there are people out there who are still very damaged by this experience. We strongly believe, as a commission, that mental health supports and healing programs for individuals are very important, so that they can at least find some measure of peace in their lives as a result of discovering the truth of the fact that this experience was not their fault but that, nonetheless, they have to be able to get beyond it. Healing, for them, will be more difficult than it would be for the intergenerational survivors, but there is still a significant degree of anger, resentment and frustration on the part of the intergenerational population that also needs to be addressed, and we think those healing programs are very important.
We made a number of recommendations in our interim report, and we plan to repeat those recommendations and add to them in our final report, because we view that as very important.
I am sorry I took so long to answer your question, but it was a complex one.
Senator Dyck: It was a very good answer and I am sure it answered many other questions that other senators might have. Thank you so much for that.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before us, and say that I respect you for taking on the work of the commission. It is very important for our country and for the people of Canada, and of course for the Aboriginal people of Canada. I have no doubt that you have heard thousands of heartbreaking stories of people who have been through a residential school experience.
I was fortunate to have been at the Inuvik commission hearing you held a couple of summers ago. I was impressed by your patience and the manner in which you carry out your work.
I spent 11 years in a residential school when I was young. The first period of six years, when I was in Fort Providence, when I was between 5 and 11, were the hardest. I consider that I still suffer from the impact of that. I suffer from sadness and I suffer from depression. I have good days and I have bad days, days that I do not even feel like getting up. As I get older, I wonder if I will ever shake this and get over this.
The effects of residential schools are real and profound. I am evidence of that — to a certain extent, damaged goods. One really struggles to help oneself.
I want to ask you about the interim report. I am aware there are 20 resolutions that you have made. What has been the response of the federal government? Do you feel that the federal government is responding and taking your recommendations seriously?
Mr. Sinclair: I think a lot depends upon what they do. They have not done what we have asked them to do in many respects. However, that does not mean there is not a feeling of the sense of importance around it. We just had a dialogue with the parties to the settlement agreement a couple of months ago at one of the all-parties meetings and asked them to engage in a discussion with us about what they should do about the interim recommendations. Keep in mind that the interim recommendations were issued a year ago, and while in some respects it is a long period of time to be waiting, in other respects the complexity of the recommendations I think calls for there to be a comprehensive analysis and approach to them.
The discussion with the parties around the implementation of the recommendations so far has been very enlightening and important. I think that more needs to be done. There are commitments that we have called upon the parties to make that will require consideration of expenditure of additional resources, over and above what has been provided to this point in time. An example of that is our recommendation that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation should be continued, or should have been continued, and that a program like that is necessary for there to continue to be a proper approach to the healing of Aboriginal survivors of residential schools.
In addition to that, we had recommended that there be proper resources established for mental health centres for Aboriginal survivors of residential schools, particularly in Northern Canada, because there is a significant lack of access to mental health resources in the North that we felt was clear to us as we were finishing our northern hearings, but also in terms of the work we had done in some of our southern hearings. It is not surprising to learn that, if you have the resources to do it, it is easier to be able to access mental health resources in the South than it is in the North. Even if you have the resources in the North, it is still difficult to find people with the training and the necessary skills in the North to provide you with that assistance. However, there is also a question of resourcing and putting the programs in place.
We are not just talking, incidentally, about more psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health Western-trained professionals. We are also talking about establishing culturally appropriate treatment programs that engage elders and Aboriginal healers in the dialogue with survivors.
In a study that was conducted for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, it was pointed out that many Aboriginal people — and in particular, survivors of residential schools and intergenerational survivors — who are finding their way back to their culture and their sense of identity are engaged not only with Western professionals when it comes to dealing with medical and mental health issues, but they are also engaged with elders and Aboriginal spiritual healers, and they also need to be part of any healing regimen that is put together for Aboriginal people, particularly as a result of the residential school experience.
In terms of your question about whether or not that is being addressed adequately by the Government of Canada, to this point in time, the Government of Canada has dedicated millions of dollars to health treatment of Aboriginal people in Canada, and that is a significant contribution. However, what we are suggesting now is that there has to be a considered approach given to ensuring that the programs of treatment that are put together for Aboriginal people take into account, in fact, the actual problems that come out of residential schools and the uniqueness of those problems. That requires a lot more work than has been put in up to this point in time.
We have not been told that will not be part of the dialogue, but I think the fact that there has been some commitment made to ensuring that those people who go through the independent assessment process continue to receive mental health supports is a good sign. However, when that process is over, our question is what will happen to those people who are left behind.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Welcome. I also remember when they came and took away my cousins. It was a very sad day.
You mentioned here that the Government of Canada and the commission were not able to come to an agreement over the documents housed by Library and Archives Canada. What are the reasons?
Mr. Sinclair: What are the reasons we could not come to agreement?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Sinclair: Because they were wrong. The court said they were wrong, and we were right.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Has the government responded to any of the recommendations in the interim report?
Mr. Sinclair: Yes, the government has responded to the each of the recommendations we have made in the report. They have outlined some of the things they have done in response to the interim report, and some of them where they have indicated that they have done certain things in response to the recommendation or as part of their dealing with respect to the recommendation we are not certain is an adequate response to the recommendation itself.
The interim recommendations were recommendations that we identified that were more urgent. We know that there will need to be some longer-term recommendations that will have to be addressed, and we expect that some of the interim recommendations will be repeated as part of the longer-term focus that we will be taking.
There will be an opportunity for us to renew and to discuss in our final report about what has been done to this point in time in implementing or not implementing those recommendations.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you think one year is a long enough time to complete your work?
Mr. Sinclair: Do you mean the remaining year for us to complete our work?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes.
Mr. Sinclair: I think it depends on how many documents end up in our office and when they come there. If they arrive on June 30 of 2014, no, we need them much sooner than that and we need them right away, quick.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: If they come in the night before, do you think you would be able to get an extension without any problems?
Mr. Sinclair: Well, the issue of extension and the issue of additional resources for the commission are issues that we have flagged for all of the parties at this point in time.
We have warned the parties that the longer they take to comply with their obligations under the settlement agreement, the more urgent it becomes for them to recognize and for us to raise with them the fact that we are unable to complete our mandate. As commissioners, we are not prepared to leave this work undone.
If the work is at a stage where we are unable to complete it because of the actions of the parties, then we will have to engage them in serious dialogue. If they will not engage in serious dialogue with us about what needs to be done, then we will ask the court for some direction because the court has the continuing responsibility to oversee the implementation of the settlement agreement. It is a court-ordered settlement agreement.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I want to ask a question, if I may.
I know you spoke briefly about the education component when it comes to educating Canadians about the Indian residential schools and Aboriginal peoples in Canada overall.
I have looked at some of the work they did in Australia. New South Wales, at least, has a grade 4 education requirement for every student to learn about the "stolen generation''; I think that is what it is called. They see very positive results from those children by grade 8 and grade 9, and their understanding of the issue. I am a big believer, and I was at the conference in Winnipeg where I spoke about reconciliation and how isolation sometimes challenges true reconciliation.
I am trying to figure out how to get the acknowledgement of Canadians broadly, probably as best found through youth. I know you suggest that there might be some buy-in. Do you see real buy-in from ministers of education and provinces to implement? I have seen your educational materials implementing that type of program in the grade 3 to 4 range, when young people have the opportunity to actually learn about something tragic, but, as well, a reality for them so that as they go forward they have a better understanding. If you do, would you tell me the one province you see that is actually doing this?
Mr. Littlechild: Thank you. That is a very important question, and while we have seen good progress in the area of education, I want to go back to where we started. I think you have heard it said before that it was education that got us into this mess, but it will also be education that will get us out of it.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Mr. Littlechild: One of highlights for me, for example, was when the University of Manitoba came to Halifax to offer a gesture of reconciliation, apologizing for their role in allowing students who graduated as teachers to graduate without any knowledge about residential schools and their history and legacy. That was a very important step, I think, that told Canada from an institution like a university, that aspect.
Since then, of course, we have had the Northwest Territories begin a mandatory inclusion in the high school level of residential schools. While it is only the first year of implementation, they will assess how it has worked and see what kind of changes they need to make. Those two steps, I think, were significant from the Canadian side because this is our biggest challenge, namely, how to engage Canada in this education. It is very important.
In the previous report and also tonight, we mentioned that the education of Canadian students also has to be considered very importantly. It was not just indigenous students in the schools that were affected; it was also all the students in all non-indigenous schools. It is a big, big challenge, and we need to address it properly.
While there has been a ministers' meeting, I think I would challenge them still to go farther, and that is to consider the inclusion in all schools in Canada — all schools — to have in the curricula a mandatory inclusion of residential school history. I think the children will then begin to make the change once they know about the history.
There is a good example in Saskatchewan. When the schools were required to include treaties in the schools as educational requirements in a number of years, not many years later, they discovered what happened after was that students became not only more understanding of each other but the relationships in the schoolyard actually improved. I think that example will readily transfer to the residential school story as well.
Once children in Canada, not just young children but also the critical age of the teenagers and the early university grouping, know that history, I think it will be very significant in terms of changing Canada for the better.
It is a very important question, and I want to thank you for that because that is where the solution lies. At least one of the solutions lies therein.
The Chair: Thank you for the good response. Thank you for the indication that it was a good question. Even a blind bird can find a worm sometimes.
Senator Patterson: I would like to echo Senator Sibbeston's commending of your courage and commitment in taking on this very important task. I am sure it has been extremely exhausting, given the emotional character of your work.
I would like to ask a question about your interim report recommendation on reconciliation. You talked about the need to change the relationship between Aboriginal people and the Government of Canada, moving away from the social welfare approach towards recognition of Aboriginal people's unique legal status as the original peoples of this country.
Could you elaborate on this and on whether you have any concrete actions in mind that the federal government could take for this relationship to change in the direction recommended in your report? Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Littlechild: I am looking for the exact recommendation reference.
Senator Patterson: It is on page 87 of the book, They Came for the Children, and page 28 of the interim report, I believe. It is page 27, sorry.
Mr. Littlechild: I am not sure where to start on the point we made there. It is a huge area that actually goes back to the early doctrines of discovery, for example, where the relationship was impacted not only by historical doctrines but also by legislation that followed based on those doctrines.
The follow-up historically was, for example, with the Royal proclamation and that whole era of our history and the role it had on how residential schools were a force for the removal of children and the dispossession of lands, territories and resources. The relationship sometimes has been called, because of that, a poisonous relationship, and that is a terrible way to cast indigenous/non-indigenous relationships in this country.
Look at that history and fast-forward it to today in terms of the impact of the residential schools and then look at what that does to reconciliation and what reconciliation is in that scenario. We concluded early upon learning from testimonies that reconciliation really is about improving the relationship from one that is poisonous to one that is respectful. Sometimes I rely on a Cree word that I have mentioned before because next to me there is a small city, right by my reserve, and people often mispronounce its name. They say Wetaskiwin. It is actually a Cree word that means "having good relations, having peaceful relations.'' To restore respectful relationships and to have peaceful or respectful relationships is the goal of our work in some instances because of the relationships we have had.
In terms of a social welfare approach, I think you have heard it said that it needs to be taken and put on its head and you need to look at economic relations. How do you improve relations through what has been called an economic reconciliation or economic development through reconciliation? There is a whole new perspective of dealing with that relationship.
In the international arena, there are similar scenarios around the world. As recently as last week in New York City at the United Nations truth commissions were discussed. One of the changes that they proposed to improve the education and the social welfare state was for those states where residential schools existed to look at the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and use that as a framework for reconciliation. You will see that in another paragraph we tried to link those two where we said that it is really important going into the future.
These were our early conclusions, and we are still working on them using this. The testimonies we have heard and the truth that we have heard will begin to define better what reconciliation needs to be in the future and what needs to be changed in the future as far as trying to achieve reconciliation. If we continue assimilationist policies, then the harms that were identified by the Prime Minister in his apology will just continue. In fact, we have heard in some cases that that is the case right now. They are continuing, and we need to look at that to make changes.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Mr. Sinclair: I will add to some of that, if you do not mind.
In a number of recent decisions relating to section 35 of the Constitution Act, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, the Supreme Court has said that the provision is an indication of the necessity of reconciling the existing sovereignty of the Crown with the pre-existing sovereignty of the indigenous peoples of Canada.
Since that early pronouncement relatively soon after section 35 became the overriding law of the country, the Supreme Court decision and numerous other court decisions have struggled with the question of how to reconcile the two at that level. It is clear from that indication that the nature of the relationship and the nature of the reconciliation do not involve the establishment of a paternalistic welfare approach to indigenous people in this country. That shift in the relationship is not a shift that Canada will be making in isolation; it is a shift that is going on around the world and is at various stages around the world.
From my own perspective, going back to my days as a student and a young lawyer, one of the first signs of that shift in the relationship was what occurred in the United States in the early 1970s, when the President of the United States indicated that the relationship between the United States government and the American Indian tribes, from that point forward, would be on a nation-to-nation basis. That statement was made by a Republican president, President Nixon. He made that statement because he saw, as he disclosed at the time and in subsequent writings, that it was important to bring to the discussion and the dialogue between representatives of the Government of the United States and American tribal leaders an overriding principle that would guide the discussion between tribal leaders and government officials.
The test that has been applied ever since then is whether the approach of the American government — which still retains overriding jurisdiction or overriding sovereignty, if you will, over governance of the country — nonetheless is respectful of the nation-to-nation relationship that the President indicated from that point forward was going to be a major factor in the dialogue.
That kind of a shift in the approach is the kind of shift that we are talking about in our report. That shift needs to occur, not just because we think it needs to occur. What we are saying is that it is a shift that is happening around the world. The treaty-to-treaty relationship that is marked by the treaties in the Western provinces and other parts of Canada is an example of that. That was a treaty between equal peoples, people who had relatively equal bargaining powers. It was not a gift given by one party to the other just out of the goodness of their heart; it was a requirement in order for that relationship to have some peaceful existence.
That is what we are saying, that it needs to be recognized that the relationship that is signified by the treaties — and which has now been renewed in section 35 of the Constitution and which is repeated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — needs to be recognized as a principle that should be guiding the approach to the relationship between the Government of Canada and the governors and leaders of the indigenous populations of this country.
If that shift in the approach is taken, then it will go a long way to establishing a more mutually respectful relationship between those leaders. It will not change things overnight. Poverty will not be eliminated by it. Housing will not be improved by it. The roads will not suddenly become paved. It will change the way people talk to and about each other, and that is what we are saying needs to occur.
Mr. Littlechild: I would like to add a quick response to one part I did not touch on, and that is the recognition of legal status that you mention in the paragraph. The notion taught in schools that there are two founding nations in Canada is one aspect we were thinking about and talking about when we said that this approach that we reference, in terms of the social welfare approach, fails to recognize the unique legal status of Aboriginal peoples as original peoples of this country.
The alternative that could be considered is that maybe there are three founding nations in this country, not just two. If you only refer to two founding nations, you are excluding the original peoples of these territories. That relationship has to be recognized, as indigenous peoples.
To this day, our people are being challenged in court to prove that they are Aboriginal people. That is one of the first tests they face in court. We need to look at that more carefully and be willing to be more open and inclusive of everyone. That would mean, for example, recognizing that there are three founding peoples in Canada. That is the relationship that was being identified in that paragraph as well.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. It is very nice to have you back again to get an update. I certainly will be there in September. Personally, I hope that everyone on the committee will make an effort to attend one of those national events, because I can see how important they are.
We are coming up to the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation. Of course, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is being reformatted as the Canadian Museum of History. Is your commission playing a role to ensure that Aboriginal history is being included properly as the basis of this country?
I would argue that there are not three founding nations; there are probably a lot of First Nations that were here, and then there are two new ones. However, it is really important, because that national museum will be a way to start to rewrite the history, and I agree 100 per cent.
Do you have a relationship with the museum, or who would be responsible, from all the many First Nations, for making sure they get it right?
Mr. Sinclair: I do not know the answer to the latter part. I suspect that the various Aboriginal leaders feel they would have a role to play with regard to representing their particular interests in the dialogue.
I can tell you that when the announcement was made by the government a few months ago that they were going to change the approach to the Canadian Museum of Civilization and create a museum of history, we indicated early on that we would like to be part of that dialogue, because we think that is an important aspect of reconciliation. As I said earlier, you cannot change history, but you can change two things about it: You can change what you know and you can change what you understand about it.
Museums will do that. Museums will give you more information about history and museums will help you understand what that history means to you today. Museums — and in particular, national museums like the Canadian Museum of History — will have a tremendous impact upon how Canadians and the world perceive Canada, but also how Canadians perceive themselves. We think that perception needs to include an Aboriginal content, because the role of Aboriginal people in the early evolution of this country was key; there is no doubt about that, and we need to ensure it is there.
Your question really was whether we are involved in the dialogue, and the answer is no. Do we want to be involved in the dialogue? The answer is yes. If you can figure out a way for us to get in the door, we would be like to be able to sit at the table.
Senator Raine: I was struck too when we travelled on this committee for a study on Aboriginal education K to 12. We had an opportunity to travel across the country and we were very impressed — I think I can speak for everyone — by what is happening in Saskatchewan with the treaty commissioner, that we are all treaty people, and having a mandatory curriculum. I understand that is happening now in Manitoba as well.
Mr. Sinclair: Yes.
Senator Raine: Within a few years, it will be K to 12 in Manitoba. It is so important, for all the reasons you stated. The timing is actually perfect for it, because we are at a tipping point. It has to change, and it will only change when everyone recognizes it.
Is there anything that you see coming down that would block that movement to have better education for everyone in the schools in terms of Aboriginal history?
Mr. Sinclair: It is conceivable that the arguments that will be marshalled against doing anything in that area would be a financial argument, that it will cost money and it will cost money that is not there. What we have said in our presentation to the ministers of education, when we talked about the importance of looking at changing the curriculum and adding to curriculum to ensure there is balance within educational curricula around the role of Aboriginal people in the evolution of this country and the historical relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country, is that you do not have to spend any more money to do that properly. You just need to understand that the way you are doing it now is not right; it is not balanced. You just need to change the way you are doing business. You can do that without spending any more money than what you are now spending on education.
The forces that will resist this will be using a financial argument, saying this will cost us money and therefore we should not do it. In reality, you can find ways of achieving reconciliation and moving forward to ensure that there is a proper, balanced approach to education of Canadian children in this country that will not require the expenditure of additional resources. We are doing curriculum development in this country all the time. We are looking at the way we educate children all the time. We are changing our curriculum all the time. What we are saying is do it right. This is one of the ways of doing it right. This is one of the elements of doing it right that needs to be considered.
We made that presentation to the various ministers of education at the CMEC, Canadian Ministers of Education in Canada meeting, and we will continue to make that presentation to them. We will continue to hold their feet to the fire, to a certain extent, to pressure them, so long as our commission is place. Keep in mind we only have another year. So long as we are in place, our intention is to hold them to that standard. They understand that. I do not know that there was anyone philosophically opposed to ensuring that there is a balance to the education of children in this country, but there certainly are forces out there who think it will cost money, without doing any analysis that will show them that it will not.
Senator Raine: I think out of the process that you are going through you are probably discovering and nurturing a lot of champions for this.
Mr. Sinclair: I am finding a lot of enemies too, incidentally.
Senator Raine: Really? We hope there are more champions than enemies.
Mr. Sinclair: I really believe that, and we have found a great deal of good champions. With the greater understanding of what this is all about, we have come to see that there are a significant number of people out there who are just waiting now for an opportunity to get involved. The most significant and constant reaction we get following our events and our presentations as commissioners is that we find people who are saying, "I never knew any of this,'' and now they are aware of it. The next question is, what can I do about it? We are trying to give a sense of direction to what that is. That is part of the dialogue around reconciliation.
The Chair: Justice Sinclair, do you know if the Canadian Museum of History is working on an Indian residential school exhibit now?
Mr. Sinclair: The Canadian Museum of History?
The Chair: Yes, with Aboriginal Affairs Canada.
Mr. Sinclair: We do not know.
Mr. Littlechild: Senator Raine laid out an important opportunity coming up for this work, which involves all of us — that is, the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. It is one scenario; so is the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Proclamation, which is fast approaching. So is the opening of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. When you look at those opportunities with regard to the darkest chapter of our history, as it has been called — that is, the residential schools story in the Canadian story — I could not think of a better time to be engaged in that history to inform Canada, and indeed the world, about residential schools. If it is the darkest part of our history, then we should shed some good light on that part, making sure our work is included in consideration, whether it is through the Canadian Museum of History or through the Canadian Museum for Human Rights or through both of them together, in these anniversary dates that are coming up. It is a very important opportunity for us, I think.
The Chair: I agree.
Senator Dyck: With respect to education, the very first year I was in the Senate, I visited North Battleford and I went to the friendship centre. They gave me the curriculum for K to 12 on residential schools. I am not sure who produced it or who is using it, but it is sitting in my office at home. I am wondering if you know whether or not in Saskatchewan that curriculum is being utilized within the school system.
Mr. Sinclair: Can you tell me what year that would have been?
Senator Dyck: It was in 2005.
Mr. Sinclair: Saskatchewan is one of the provinces that have been leading the way in terms of curriculum development around residential schools. I am not sure what curriculum materials you saw and how it relates to what they are now using, so I cannot answer that question as to whether they are using the material that you saw. However, I do know that Saskatchewan, along with a few other provinces have developed curriculum materials. Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have all developed curriculum materials that they are utilizing in their classrooms for children at various levels within the schools, not all at the same level. I am not sure of the answer to that question. I can tell you that they are doing something and that they are making it available to middle school children, but I am not sure that it is mandatory for all children yet. It may be. I do not have that information right at hand. If you need to know, we can certainly pull that information from our files.
Our recommendation to the ministers of education was that it should be made mandatory so that all children have this included in the material that they are taught about the history of this country.
Senator Watt: First, Justice Sinclair and Mr. Littlechild, I know you have been doing a great deal of work on our behalf. As you know, I am a survivor of the residential school, the same as Senator Sibbeston. I remember leaving my community for the very first time. Landing in Montreal during the night, all I saw was beacons in front of me, nothing but lights. At that time, I did not really think of it, but it was part of the culture shock in a sense. It was a culture shock.
Having said that, you have done a great deal of good work. I did not participate in all the events you have held, but I was not far from you and I knew what was happening and every step that you were taking. You had one of my sons working with you, and I appreciated that. He kept me informed of what was happening and who was saying what.
I have also listened to the survivors in Montreal. My impression of the survivors, and the way they were pointing out their grievances with the authorities, was not shocking because I lived through that. I did not see willingness to reconcile at the event that you held in Montreal. That leaves quite a number of people. I would imagine that they were hurt so badly in the experiences they went through. It was not a surprise to me, and I do not think it was a surprise to you either.
Having said that, you came up with a number of important issues. I will not try to begin to articulate the issues you have brought forward, but we do need to find some answers. We know for a fact that we have constitutional rights, section 35, which have not been implemented, and they still seem to be reluctant to implement that on the government side. Maybe one day they will change their mind, but I do not know how much longer we can continue to wait for an opportunity to move forward and to begin enjoying a level playing field, as everyone else has.
When you look back at the conditions of the reserve system and also in some parts of Inuit communities, we are so far apart. The politicians from time to time talk about closing the gap. It makes me wonder if they really know what they are talking about. We are not near to closing the gap. We are so far away from that.
It is as simple as looking at our economic opportunities. There are all kinds of economic opportunities. The majority of the Aboriginal people in this country have a great deal of difficulty in terms of purchasing power. They are having a hard time equipping themselves to be able to sustain themselves on their own, to be able to gather the food and clothing they need from the country, because they cannot afford to go into the corner stores or the Hudson's Bay Company to buy the goods they need to survive.
Aboriginal people are like everyone. They have a right to eat and a right to survive. Unfortunately, still today there is no full recognition of that. That is the case today, but we need to change that. How will we change that? We have a modern treaty agreement that we have signed, a part that is totally under the control of the Aboriginal people. We have no difficulty implementing those. When it comes to the point of a partnership with the Government of Canada or the provinces, we do have a great deal of difficulty. It makes you wonder at times, when you talk of a friendship, a treaty agreement that was signed from the time the Europeans started to come into our country. It is highlighted they are not working. Just imagine, even the legally binding agreements we have, modern treaties, we are having a hard time implementing. Life has to change in this country if we are to move forward.
I would like to ask Justice Sinclair and Mr. Littlechild: What else do we need as an instrument to make things happen within Canada on behalf of the Aboriginal people? We have constitutional rights, we have declarations recognized under the United Nations, we have treaties, and still we are not moving ahead. We are still not improving ourselves. We are still going backwards. What do we do? What is it we really need? What is the simple magic we need in order for the country and the people with it to understand and say, "Okay, now is the time to reconcile''? I do not think we are at the point of being ready to reconcile, because it does not matter what we do, it does not seem to be helping us to move forward.
The question I have for you, Mr. Sinclair, is the following: Do we need an act? Do we need a legislative act coming from the people dealing with the reconciliation issue? Would that be possible? Have you put some thought into that? I will leave my question at that.
Mr. Sinclair: The complication in the question you have given is that you have thrown a whole bunch of things in there that have a lot of implications.
Let me begin by what is the premise that we need to keep in mind. No one gives you sovereignty. No one gives you a life. You have to go out and make it, and be it. If Aboriginal people are going to assert for themselves that they have the right to do certain things, then they have to go out and do it. They have to stand up and assert themselves. What I think the biggest hindrance to that has been is this long period of oppression that has stood in the way of Aboriginal communities generally — individuals, but also as a collective — feeling that they have the right to assert themselves against this behemoth that has become the nation of Canada. As a result of that, there is this feeling that no solution will work unless it has the endorsement, the support, or comes from the governments of this country.
No solution will work for Aboriginal people that comes from non-indigenous governments, in my view. I saw that more at a personal level than I do as a judge or lawyer or even as a commissioner of this commission. I do not doubt for a moment that legislative changes will be necessary; changes to the Indian Act will be necessary; changes to the various other pieces of legislation that place a hindrance upon or a limitation upon the exercise of certain rights will need to be considered. The manner in which the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is given more status within the legal regimen of this country needs to be considered.
You cannot pass a law in this country that will make Aboriginal people stand up. What needs to be done is that Aboriginal people need to find within themselves the capacity to stand up.
To a large extent, we are beginning to see signs of it more assertively today than we have seen in the past. We have seen it in the past. If you recall back in our younger days, and before the birth of some of the people in this room, when the 1969 white paper was issued by the Government of Canada that purported to move Canada in the direction of obliterating Aboriginal rights and treaty rights in this country, there was an immediate reaction from the Aboriginal leadership and the Aboriginal community in general towards that. That galvanized Aboriginal people and Aboriginal leadership to take action and to assert themselves in significant ways.
Since the 1969 white paper, we have actually seen a significant change in the legal relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country, beginning with the Calder case and following through on that with other court decisions, including the Sparrow case and what has been come to be known as the trilogy case, the repatriation of the Constitution in the 1980s with its provision and recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights. All of that came about because there was this reaction in 1969 to the 1969 white paper issued by the Government of Canada.
I think that kind of galvanizing moment will need to occur in order for there to be recognition within the Aboriginal community that they have the capacity within themselves to do what is necessary to create their own future. That is really what it is all about: creating their own future. There will need to be a number of actions on the part of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments in response to that, but for the most part it is getting out of the way and letting those changes that need to be done occur within those communities.
In response to your question, do we need federal legislation, the answer I give is that it will not be the answer, but it will be part of the solution. I think the real solution will be the communities of Aboriginal people that are out there will need to stand up and assert themselves and find it within themselves to take on responsibility for dealing with their own issues within their own communities.
I am not talking about taking protest actions or blockades or demonstrating; I am talking about standing up and putting together initiatives that will promote their cultures, promote their languages, promote the education of their children in a positive way, that will allow for the evolution and development of enterprise within their community so that their communities can become self-sufficient, that there will be a growth in the middle-class population.
Right now the Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal population in this country have virtually no middle class. As a result, institutions that you normally see within any community that are dependent upon a middle class for their support do not exist within many Aboriginal communities. There are no arts foundations and cultural centres that are not dependent upon federal or provincial governments for financial support.
The communities themselves will need to galvanize around that reaction. That will require a change in attitude toward government and the role of government. That speaks to the need for there to be recognition that government, as much as it is to blame for many of the problems that exist within Aboriginal communities, does not hold the answer. The answer lies within Aboriginal communities themselves finding the human as well as the physical resources that they will need in order to be able to fix the problems they are seeing on an everyday basis.
A large part of that will be over the long term and will not be an immediately short-term fix. There will certainly be a need for social programming and social assistance of some kind, such as housing assistance and assistance to ensure that proper water supplies and proper care are provided for those communities. In the long term, the answer lies in Aboriginal people standing up for themselves and asserting themselves.
Survivors in the hearings that we have attended recognize that and in fact have spoken about the need for there to be initiatives taken by their own communities to ensure that the survivors' grandchildren are provided with resources to learn their language, their culture and to be able to establish a good sense of their identity. That is very important.
We also need to recognize that Canada is changing. From the perspective of the Aboriginal community, this blaming process in which we are now engaged will become pretty futile in the future because in the future a significant number of Canadians will not in fact be born in this country. They will not have a connection to this history. We are talking about the immigrant population.
From the perspective of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we have to recognize that the newcomers to this country, who have come here within the past generation and will continue to come into this country, will become a significant political force as well as a significant economic force. They will not be connected to the history of oppression. They will not feel any sense of guilt or connection to what was done wrong in the past. The question becomes for us, as a commission, how do we communicate to that community that they still are connected to the issue of Aboriginal people and residential schools? The answer there lies in getting them to recognize that while they may not be responsible for the past, they will be responsible for the future, and the future of this country requires a proper approach to reconciliation in which they have to be engaged.
At the B.C. national event, for example, we will be in Vancouver. Vancouver is the largest multicultural and multi- ethnic community in the country, with the possible exception of Toronto. In Vancouver and Toronto are the largest gatherings of newcomer populations in this country. When we do the B.C. national event in September, our intention is to try to engage the multicultural, the newcomer community, in the dialogue around reconciliation without in fact being able to blame them for what went on in the past.
If we move away from the blaming game and start looking at how we work together to ensure a proper future for this country, that maybe will put us in a proper mindset for how we achieve reconciliation going forward in the future because right now the blame game sometimes allows us to guilt government and guilt Canada into doing something. You cannot do that when the other party to the conversation is not in fact connected to the history.
We need to take that kind of approach, of not relying upon guilt or blame but saying, "Here is the problem. The problem is that the relationship between us and this country is damaged and we need to fix it.'' That begins with ensuring that newcomers to this country are also properly educated about the history of this country as well. We have talked to people within the immigration entities in government about what they need to do to educate people who are immigrating to this country about what this country is all about. The education of the immigrant population needs to be enhanced as well.
The short answer to your question is that the answer to problems within the Aboriginal community lies within the Aboriginal community and they have to find it, they have to exercise it and they have to do it. Some assistance will be necessary for that to happen over the short term, but in the long term it has to come from them.
Senator Watt: Mr. Littlechild, do you have anything to say on this issue?
Mr. Littlechild: Yes. I think within the walls of Parliament, and in other political arenas, when you ask the question of what instrument we need, rather than an instrument initially I would suggest that one of the first things we need for change to take hold is political will. I say political will at all government levels, whether it is the federal or provincial level or whether it is municipal, or whether it is First Nations, Metis and Inuit leadership. When political will exists, we all know that change can happen very fast. That is one observation I would make.
A second observation I would make is that going forward, when we hear stories like you just referenced about not being ready to reconcile, there are, admittedly, many of our brothers and sisters still out on the streets who are indeed not ready to reconcile. Even in that instance, if we were to look at the existing treaty relationship as an example, the UN declaration, I believe they both call on us to work together in this initiative for change. Do we need an act to do that? Maybe there is some consideration for that. I will give you three quick examples.
First, I referenced education's role at the beginning. Do we indeed need a First Nations education act to make change? Do we need a reconciliation act once our work is done to make sure that what we propose as solutions can be considered, and more importantly, implemented? Do we need an implementation act to do that?
Those are still questions we need to discuss, but at least I would begin to say that when we do that we will indeed find options for a way forward that we can choose collectively.
That would be my observation. Political will, a desire and, indeed, a decision to work in partnership together. Whether it is the legislative route or another route, I think those are two fundamental, foundational starting points. That would be my observation.
Senator Watt: I have one more point to raise. In this country, anywhere in the country for that matter, you cannot do anything without money. We used to be able to do that in the past by relying on natural resources to feed and clothe ourselves. That is our economic base. To a certain extent, that is still the case today in the North. We need to go in the direction of empowering ourselves and taking responsibility. If we do not have control over the finances we need, we have a limitation there.
When you are dealing with the reconciliation issue, one of the questions I would like to have highlighted is whether we need to come up with a formula so that we can enjoy the benefits of the natural resources of this country, which were ours at one point and have been taken away. The blaming of each other could stop once and for all so that we can all start to move forward positively. I would like your reaction to that.
Mr. Sinclair: I think the foundation of your question is what the nature of the government-to-government relationship that we are going to be seeing in the future is, if I understood your question properly.
Senator Watt: Yes.
Mr. Sinclair: From that, I gather there is implicit within it a question regarding the nature of the financial relationship between those two governments. There is no doubt in my mind that there are lots of models that one could choose from. You could look at the existing way that provincial and federal governments now relate to each other in terms of financing as well.
On top of all of that, there is the question of entitlement to utilization of the resources of the land, which are still part of some of the treaties as well as the claim of Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights and which courts have recognized are part of the constitutional encumbrance upon the land of this country that still must be dealt with. I think it is going to take a long conversation in order to determine how that will break down.
Your question is what is the formula. I do not know what the formula will be. I do not know on what basis that relationship will develop. I cannot tell you whether the formula will be that a certain percentage of the benefits from the resources are going to go into the coffers of Aboriginal government or whether it will be some other process it is engaged in.
I do know this: We cannot continue to fund Aboriginal people's programs in the future on a social welfare policy approach because then it is seen to be a burden upon the rest of the Canadian population as opposed to being an entitlement to a share of the resources or an entitlement to the way that Aboriginal people govern themselves.
If you call it social programming or social welfare, then it is social welfare. If you approach it and fund it as though it were a social welfare program, then it is nothing more than a social welfare program.
However, if Aboriginal governments are allowed to function as any government is allowed to function on a proper sharing of resources or sharing of tax revenue that comes from entitlement to the resources that are being taxed, then the equation is a totally different one and the view of them is a totally different view.
I think the perception is more important than the actual amount of money and how the money flows. It is the fact that the approach being taken is a different kind of approach entirely.
I agree with you that resources are needed in order for Aboriginal governments or Aboriginal leadership to be able to do what is needed within their communities, but as long as they are administering someone else's social program, then they are not leading or doing any leadership function, in my view. They are managing, which is a different thing; a manager is not necessarily a leader. We need to recognize that the relationship needs to be changed.
That is again why we say at the commission that we have to look and should look carefully at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation, because within the declaration, there is a dialogue and discussion about principles for the relationship between indigenous peoples and sovereign entities that will define and put on a better footing the relationship between those two very distinct peoples.
We think understanding what that means is an important part of the dialogue. Any legislative changes implemented, such as how the Indian Act is approached or repealed and replaced by something else, need to be done in consideration of the principles that are at play in the United Nations declaration.
Mr. Littlechild: I think that revenue-sharing is certainly one of the considerations that need to be discussed not only to recognize original ownership, but also to implement some of the treaties in the right way. I say that because one of the fundamental foundational principles was that those agreements were meant to share. It was not us giving up everything. It was an agreement to share not only the surface rights, but we also retained many subsurface rights, including minerals. There are a lot of good legal reasons and good legal international standards that could be considered for application to ensure that there is indeed a sharing of revenue.
When you talk about closing the gap, if you look at the education gap, we were told many times that it would take 28 years for indigenous children to catch up to non-indigenous children in terms of high school graduation. When you look at that gap and one of the ways to close it, of course it would be with finances, but whose finances? If you look at it from that perspective, the revenue-sharing possibility — I would not even call it a possibility. I think we need to begin in a real way the sharing of resources.
When I hear a figure like $600 billion worth of resources on indigenous territories right now in Canada, then I think there should be a willingness to look at that and ask the question, "How do we share that so everyone benefits?'' Those are discussions that are long overdue, I would say. We need to have had those and we need to begin to have them now because if we want to close the education gap and the economic gap, then I think we have to be willing to share the resources.
Senator Watt: Thank you.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. This has been just a wonderful evening.
We did a study on Metis history recently, and in our travels we came across people who were Metis, had gone to residential schools and were not part of the reconciliation and the settlement. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Sinclair: Any Metis person who went to a residential school that is listed in the agreement is entitled to compensation for having gone to the school. Any Metis child who did not attend a residential school that is listed in the agreement but who was injured at one of those schools is entitled to compensation for the injury. The agreement does include them to that extent.
Part of the problem is that there are quite a number of schools that were run by Catholic entities in Western Canada in particular — Ontario as well — that were residential schools in nature, that were attended by Metis children because of their Catholic background, and that are not included in the settlement agreement. Therefore, they feel excluded both from the settlement agreement itself — and they are in fact legally excluded from the settlement agreement because the school is not listed — but they also feel excluded from the apology, and they feel excluded from having been considered as part of the gestures of reconciliation with the apology issued by the Prime Minister and the other leaders of Parliament in 2008.
There is a significant feeling of loss there, not only on the part of the Metis who were excluded because of that issue around the schools, but also on the part of First Nation students who went to residential schools but did not reside there. We are talking about the day students. In many cases, a residential school was actually constructed in their community or in a community close by. They went to that school during the day. They were treated the very same way as the residential school students, but they got to go home at night and were not in the residence. They may not have been staying in a residence that was managed by the Department of Indian Affairs. They may have been staying in another residence that was managed only by the church, in which case they are not included in the Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Therefore, they also feel excluded, and I suspect there will be litigation around that issue as well as litigation on behalf of the Metis students who attended the non-included schools as well.
What we have said as a commission is that though they are not included in the settlement agreement, we will include them in our dialogue on the issue of what occurred within the schools so they can come forward and place on the record their experiences as day students or as Metis students in the schools they attended. We will also include them in our discussion around reconciliation, so when we ask the question of what we can do to make things better for the future for our grandchildren in this country, we can offer them the opportunity to be included in those discussions and dialogues.
I should point out, incidentally, that those were the not the only groups that were excluded from the settlement agreement. All of those who attended government-run schools in Newfoundland and Labrador were also excluded from the settlement agreement because of Newfoundland and Labrador's late entry into Confederation. None of the schools that were established and run for Aboriginal students in Newfoundland and Labrador are part of the settlement agreement.
There are quite a number of Aboriginal people who are excluded from the settlement agreement, and that, in our view, creates a challenge to reconciliation in this country because as long as they feel excluded, they feel they should not participate or they decline to participate or they do not feel included in the dialogue around reconciliation. What we have said, going back to our first year of existence, as long as such a large population of Aboriginal people are excluded from the settlement agreement and excluded from both the compensation process as well as the recognition of their experience, reconciliation will be a hard thing to achieve in this country.
Senator Raine: It is a challenge.
Mr. Sinclair: Very much so.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I want to thank you both very much. I know how hard the commission has worked, and I echo Senator Raine's suggestion that if anyone here has a chance to attend either Vancouver or Edmonton, they should. It was quite heartwarming. When I was in Winnipeg, I think 2,700 people were in the room. It was a special moment for me.
Thank you for being here tonight and thank you very much for your comments.
(The committee adjourned.)