THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 2, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:47 p.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.
I’m Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I would now like to ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory. Let’s start on my left.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, I am from Saskatchewan, Treaty 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia. Welcome.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Audette: Michèle Audette, replacing Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas. What an honour.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
With the goal of informing and guiding our future work, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples is inviting witnesses, including federal departments, representatives from First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and others to come to discuss their work and priorities.
Yesterday, we heard from Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
Today, we will hear from the following witnesses in the first panel: from the Assembly of First Nations, National Chief RoseAnne Archibald, and from the Métis National Council, President Cassidy Caron.
National Chief Archibald and President Caron, wela’lin and thank you for joining us this evening. You will each provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes. Then we will move to a question-and-answer session for approximately five minutes per senator.
Due to time constraints, please keep exchanges brief and precise. To avoid interrupting or cutting anyone off, I will hold up this sign when you have approximately one minute left on your allocated time.
With that out of the way, I now invite National Chief Archibald to give her remarks.
RoseAnne Archibald, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations: Meegwetch. Wahcheeyay misiway. RoseAnne Archibald nitishinikahsoon. Taykwa Tagamou ishinakataow kawocheean.
First of all, I want to say that I’m happy to be here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation. I look forward to discussing how First Nations and Canada can chart a healing path forward.
The federal government has committed to meaningful reconciliation with First Nations, and today I will discuss four essential means of achieving this. They each contribute to strengthening First Nations through positive evolutionary change. They also speak to the imperative for Canada to provide the capacity and funding supports necessary for respecting, upholding and implementing First Nations rights and jurisdiction.
First, in the spirit of economic reconciliation, Canada needs to establish a national prosperity table with First Nations. Once established, this table will create a new economic deal for First Nations that will end the budgetary cycles that are restricting First Nations from building wealth and prosperity. It will create opportunities for the voice and leadership of First Nations to influence economic development, legislative and policy decisions made by the federal government. Most importantly, the new economic deal will ensure revenues to First Nations based on the wealth derived from and upon First Nations lands and water, which is all of Turtle Island — now known as Canada. The establishment of the national prosperity table will be a starting point toward greater understanding and cooperation between First Nations and the Government of Canada and will be a platform to promote economic reconciliation.
Prosperity and wealth-building must be front and centre in economic reconciliation. We need to fulfill all of the Calls to Action regarding economic reconciliation. An important body to monitor all of the Calls to Action is the proposed national council for reconciliation. With this in mind, I would point out that the national council for reconciliation act will soon be in front of you. I recently testified before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to seek support for proposed amendments to promote the independence of the board and ensure that the council has adequate funding to fulfill its mandate.
The Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, is asking for an amendment to ensure three members of the board are appointed by our organization. We know that good governance matters, and it begins with your board.
Many of you witnessed the upheaval at the AFN annual general assembly this summer. An important resolution that came out of that turmoil was Resolution no. 3, which directs us to conduct a third-party investigation into the climate of toxicity, bullying and lateral violence at the AFN as well as conduct a forensic audit into the previous 10 years of financial activity of the AFN with particular attention to salary payouts and contracts.
It’s essential that the federal government stand by and support AFN to ensure that we have the resources to clean up and heal the AFN so that we may uphold the principles and values of truth, transparency and accountability as a cornerstone of the important work we are doing to help rebuild First Nations, who have been devastated by colonization across Turtle Island. The AFN needs adequate funding to undertake this work. Further, we need to ensure that other First Nations and their respective organizations are properly funded to undertake governance reviews and restructuring as needed. Finally, every region and their regional offices from coast to coast to coast must be properly funded.
My third priority is to call for the establishment of a national healing fund. While the federal government tends to fund land‑based, linguistic, sports and cultural components to healing on a sporadic and proposal basis, we require long-term, sustainable funding commitments to deal with the intergenerational trauma from the former institutions of assimilation and genocide. Last week, Parliament recognized that what occurred in these institutions was genocide. Now the Government of Canada must support First Nations in establishing a national healing fund to fill the gap left by the dissolution of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation by the former government. The permanent establishment of such a fund is actually one of the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Intergenerational trauma has resulted in mental health and addiction crises in First Nations. Now more than ever, First Nations need access to trauma-informed care. The Government of Canada must provide distinction-based funding to support and enhance mental health and addictions resources for First Nations. Canada must commit to co-developing and implementing a national substance misuse strategy, addressing the opioid and meth crises. First Nations continue to be negatively impacted by Canada’s inaction.
In closing, I want to say that we have made some progress, particularly in the area of education. However, we still have a long way to go on health and economic prosperity for First Nations. I ask for your support in advocating for evolutionary and positive change for First Nations.
Ninanaskamon. Kisâkihitin. Ninanaskamon in my language means, “I am grateful, I am thankful, I thank you.” Kisâkihitin means “I love you.”
The Chair: Wela’lin. Thank you, National Chief Archibald. I will now invite President Caron to give her remarks.
Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council: Thank you. [Indigenous language spoken] Hello, everybody. My name is Cassidy Caron, and I sit before you today as the president of the Métis National Council, the recognized national and international representative of the Métis Nation in Canada since 1983.
The Métis National Council, or MNC, is comprised of and receives its mandates from democratically elected leadership within provincial Métis governments, currently within the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
In 2017, the Government of Canada and Métis governments entered into the Canada-Métis Nation Accord. Among other objectives, the accord seeks to advance reconciliation of the rights, claims, interests and aspirations of the Métis Nation. Four of five Métis governments recognized as signatories to this accord are the governments that currently comprise the Métis National Council.
Our Métis governments, through their registries and democratically elected governance structures at the local, regional and provincial levels, are mandated and authorized to represent Métis Nation citizens within their respective jurisdictions, including dealing with collectively held Métis rights, interests and outstanding claims against the Crown. Since 1983, the Métis National Council’s priority has always been to advance the distinct Métis voice at the national and international levels, and we will continue advancing issues of collective importance and serving the Métis Nation, as the original founders of the MNC intended.
The timing of this invitation to present to you on our current and upcoming priorities is quite timely, as just last week, we gathered and held our annual general assembly. The Métis Nation Council General Assembly is the body that sets our national policy direction. The governing members of the Métis National Council have now provided us with a very clear and strong mandate for how to continue moving forward toward a prosperous future for the Métis Nation. I look forward to implementing this direction in partnership with them, our Métis governments, in the spirit of true collaboration and in service to Métis citizens.
As I said, in 2017, the Métis National Council in Canada signed the Canada-Métis Nation Accord, which established a permanent bilateral mechanism that serves to jointly establish policy priorities for the year ahead through annual meetings with the Prime Minister and undertake joint policy development on those established priorities.
To date, the Métis Nation has taken great strides to enhance and promote the cultural, social, economic and political interests of the Métis Nation through that permanent bilateral mechanism, or PBM.
At this year’s general assembly, we received unanimous support to move forward with education, health and economic development as this year’s priorities under the PBM. For education, we are looking at distinctions-based education from kindergarten to Grade 12. We’ll be looking to negotiate a 10‑year Canada-Métis Nation kindergarten-to-Grade-12 education accord to improve education outcomes for Métis Nation students from across Métis homeland.
For economic development, we’re looking to increase capacity support and tools to build the Métis economic institutions and achieve sustainable Métis economic self-determination.
For health, we have been working really hard over the last number of years to develop the Métis vision for health, which is now put together in a document that was collaboratively developed by all of our governing members to address current health inequities and health priorities. The Métis vision of health is based on the Métis social determinants of health, which illuminates ways in which social, cultural and economic marginalization impacts our health. We have now received a very clear direction from the general assembly to adopt that Métis vision of health as a guidance document which summarizes the Métis Nation’s relationship with Canada on the vision for Métis health for a distinctions-based Indigenous health legislation and advance the Métis health priorities.
Those are the PBM priorities we are hoping to work on this year. Outside of the PBM, the priorities of the Métis National Council as directed by our general assembly include ongoing advocacy efforts to continue enhancing and promoting the cultural, social, economic and political interests of the Métis Nation.
One such priority of our governing members includes the advancement of the full recognition and implementation of our inherent right to self-determination and self-government. For centuries, the Métis Nation has exercised its self-determination and self-government by establishing governance structures, making and enforcing its own laws and following its traditions and customs, and we continue to do so today. In 2019, three of the four Métis governments that comprised the MNC signed with Canada the Métis Government Recognition and Self‑Government Agreements. These agreements recognized the Métis governments’ right to self-governance and self‑determination by instilling the Métis Nation’s right to undertake core governance matters including citizenship, leadership selection, governance structure and financial accountability.
The next critical component to fully implementing and realizing self-government is federal recognition legislation, which was committed to our Métis governments within those self-government agreements. The federal recognition legislation is a priority for the Métis Nation because it fulfills the commitment made by Canada and, according to my last update, is actually on track to be introduced before the end of this session.
Another key priority of the MNC will be reopening dialogue with Canada along with our governing members, specifically on the creation of a federal Métis claims process to deal with outstanding Métis claims against the Crown across the Métis Nation homeland including but not limited to failed or broken treaty promise, unanswered petitions, forced relocations, burning of our villages and, most notably, the “half-breed” scrip system.
At this time, the government does not have a coherent process or policy in place to address the land and compensation claims of Métis people. To move forward effectively down the pathway toward reconciliation, we need to take active measures to develop a procedure for addressing outstanding Métis land claims to avoid having to litigate cases individually, and enter into negotiations with Métis representatives to reach agreements toward this end.
This is just but a snapshot of the work that the Métis National Council has been mandated to move forward with this year. However, there are many more files that we are working on in collaboration with our governing members in areas such as justice, including the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, environment and climate change, missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the child welfare system, including joint intervention by our Métis governments into the Supreme Court case regarding Bill C-92.
I’m always grateful to highlight the incredible work of our Métis governments and I really do look forward to more opportunities to do so with you and your colleagues into the future. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you, President Caron. I’ll start off by asking the first question to both of you. In your view, are there priority topics that could be studied by our committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, and if so, explain. National Chief, would you like to start?
Ms. Archibald: Thank you so much for that question. I really feel that we need to think about this healing path forward that I have been talking about since I’ve been elected and the impact of the continual recovery of our children from these unmarked graves or being identified through that ground-penetrating radar.
I think it would be helpful if this committee looked at the issue of intergenerational trauma and how this government could actually provide the proper trauma-informed care and resources so that First Nations can move forward.
At the same time, I know that non-Indigenous people have also expressed being triggered and hurt by these recent findings that have happened in the last year or so. We have to think about the healing, not only of First Nations but for all of Canada, for all Canadians. I think it’s a subject that is worth studying.
The Chair: President Caron?
Ms. Caron: Thank you. One topic specifically that we would love this committee to open a study on is into a Métis claims process, as I spoke about. Actually, in 2013, this Senate standing committee found that reconciliation with Métis groups is necessary in order to provide a solid foundation for present and future generations of Métis in Canada.
This is one of those really significant missing pieces that the Métis Nation is currently faced with. The lack of process to deal with those outstanding grievances against the Crown, to settle our land claims, to make real the promises that were made to our elders and the people who are still with us but perhaps not for very long and would love to see this process move forward — I think it would be an incredible opportunity for this committee to open a study into that claims process.
The second one, building on National Chief’s comments, would be to look into Métis experiences in residential schools. It has been a piece that has significantly gone unheard for many years due to the lack of Métis involvement, Métis recognition through the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Many Métis people who had gone to residential schools still go unrecognized. We also received a mandate at our general assembly last week to continue with the advocacy to have the schools in Saskatchewan — in Île-à-la-Crosse and Timber Bay — to be recognized as residential schools, so those children who went to those schools will also be recognized as survivors. We call them that. We know their experiences. But for them to continuously live on without that recognition is something that we want to rectify.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Deputy Chair Arnot?
Senator Arnot: This question is directed to Chief Archibald. I’m intrigued by the concept of a new economic deal and a national prosperity table and the idea of ending yearly budget cycles to short and longer term. Can you tell me how the federal government has been reacting to the call for that kind of a process?
Ms. Archibald: We had a preliminary discussion with Minister Patty Hajdu on the idea, and she was very receptive. I believe during one of the committee meetings recently, it was actually noted that this was an idea that was coming out of the AFN.
In terms of the process, every single dollar, whether it’s an income tax dollar or a tax dollar, a land real estate tax dollar, is coming from First Nation lands and territories. Yet we find ourselves in these budgetary cycles. That’s what the prosperity table would look at: How do you properly give reparations to First Nations economically for all of the billions and trillions of dollars that have been taken from our lands with very little benefit to First Nations?
The prosperity table itself is really about examining how we rectify that and create a new economic deal that is based upon things like the GDP, based upon true revenue sharing, not just impact and benefit agreements with resource companies.
It’s a long, visionary kind of process. We have to begin it, though. It would take a whole generation of us continually working at it to make sure there is a new economic deal that is fair for First Nations, to lift our people out of poverty and to give them their birthright, which is to build wealth and prosperity from the lands that were given to us by the Creator.
Senator Arnot: It sounds to me like this could be framed in the area of fulfilling implementation of the spirit and intent of the treaties in a modern context under the rubric of reconciliation as well. I am intrigued by that idea.
I have a question to Ms. Caron, President of the Métis National Council.
In terms of the Métis claims process, the one that you’re advocating for, do you have some principles behind that process that you would like to advance?
We have a claims process that seems inextricably long for First Nations. Is there a way to accelerate that, or is there a different approach that you would like to explore or have us explore with you?
Ms. Caron: Absolutely. Currently, the only process that we may or may not be able to utilize in certain circumstances is the comprehensive land claims process, which is an extremely long and arduous process. There is no other mechanism for Métis to advance those historical grievances, to explore what those promises made to Métis people were.
We have thought through what this process might look like. We were in discussions with the federal government back in 2016-17 to start developing it. We had a draft ready to go. Unfortunately, it was squandered at the time, although we recognize that the federal government is open to reopening that dialogue. This is one of those priorities that we are hoping to move forward.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses. I have questions for both leaders, but I may have to go to a second round. I will start with Ms. Caron and the MNC.
You talked about needing a pathway for land. You referenced the Senate study that I was part of when Gerry St. Germain chaired the committee. We certainly learned about that, if we didn’t already know it.
In 1990, Alberta enacted the Metis Settlements Land Protection Act. I think it was a progressive move at the time. I’m wondering if that might be a model or at least a basis for the pathway for land.
Secondly, if I may add another question, you spoke about federal recognition legislation perhaps coming soon. If it comes to the Senate, this committee will probably study it. Was that legislation co-developed with your involvement?
Ms. Caron: For the first question, the settlements act in Alberta, I think we would need to have some serious conversations with the folks from the Metis Settlements to find out what’s working, what’s not working; is this a pathway forward for the future of the Métis Nation?
The Settlements General Council is not a part of the MNC right now. That would be one of those options that we would have to explore talking about with the settlements council.
The legislation, yes, absolutely, it is being co-developed with the Métis governments that have the Métis Recognition and Self‑Government Agreements that have been signed.
There are a lot of conversations that go back and forth between our governments and the federal government throughout that development process.
Senator Patterson: Ms. Caron, everyone was impressed with the work done by the TRC. When you talked about the fact that we should study Métis in residential schools, and there are these two schools that were left out — I don’t mean to be critical for a minute, because they had a huge mandate — are you saying that the TRC didn’t study Métis in residential schools very thoroughly or within its mandate? I’m just surprised because I would have thought that their report would have included all the Indigenous kids.
Ms. Caron: One would think, yes. I absolutely would never diminish the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because that opened up the conversations so much further and so much deeper in a way that this country absolutely needed it to.
Unfortunately, the trigger for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, or IRSSA.
The negotiations that took place to identify the schools that would be included under that didn’t include many of the schools that Métis students went to because of an administrative and legal nuance whereby the schools — many of the ones that Métis students went to — were not always federally funded. They were funded by the provincial government.
The schools that were recognized under the IRSSA were specifically and only funded by the federal government. So it actually leaves out a number of schools that not only Métis students went to but First Nations and Inuit students went to as well. Because of that, there are many experiences that have not been recognized, many stories that have yet to be told.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. That is very understandable, thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses, National Chief Archibald and President Caron. Thank you for being with us. It’s an honour to have you here. I know you’re both very busy, and we’re proud of the work that you are doing and thankful for that.
You both spoke about economic areas. I will put my question to both of you at once.
National Chief Archibald, you spoke about this idea of a national prosperity table, you spoke about a new economic deal, and the aspects of those that you have spoken about — and I understand you didn’t have a lot of time — largely related to — or what I heard — reparations and revenue sharing based on lands and resources of your peoples. That has to be foundational, I’m sure, and very significant in terms of future planning and righting some past wrongs. All of those things.
I am curious, though, about the other side of economic prosperity, which is self-generated. We know that First Nations communities across Canada have an uneven economic development, some of it related to their resource base, but not all of it.
I am curious whether in this new economic deal or the plans around economic development within the AFN, whether you also have an emphasis — in addition to what I have just mentioned — on that generative side, so the development of new businesses, that sort of thing.
So that’s a question for you.
My subquestion is about anything related to the new net-zero economy. I am very interested because I think First Nations communities can both prosper a lot from and lead into the new net-zero economy. That’s my question for you.
President Caron, you’ve also spoken about economic development but have not gone that deep into it other than, again, the claims processes and dealing with outstanding grievances, et cetera. I’m not in any way diminishing those. Those are absolutely foundational and critical. But you talked a little bit about building Métis economic organizations. I’d like to hear more about what that means.
Ms. Archibald: Thank you for the question. In terms of the larger economic development question and at what point First Nations would be self-generating — that was what I heard in your question — it isn’t just mining or forestry or any of those things. It’s that every single dollar of wealth in this country comes from us. It comes from our lands and waters. Take, for example, Squamish Nation. They’re within the city of Vancouver, so really it’s a tax-based economy they would plug into. I was recently at their UNDRIP announcement with the City of Vancouver and I noticed that one of the things they were talking about is how to begin to share that tax base based upon the value of real estate and all those things that are related to lands in the Lower Mainland with those communities.
So those go on in perpetuity as long as people live on that land. So that becomes a self-generating, continual source of income for a place like Squamish — or anybody in that Lower Mainland. But then you get up into a community like mine — where I come from, Taykwa Tagamou — and it is very resource-based. We own a couple of run-of-the-river hydro projects. We are involved in mining and forestry. We are connected into that resource-based economy. So it will vary wherever you are. It’s not going to be one thing that will apply to every First Nation. It has to be based on their situation and the economy around them.
I do want to tell you really briefly that when I was chief in my community, I came in for a second term as chief. In my first term, I was quite young. I think I was 23 at the time. My second term was about 10 years later, and the unemployment rate was 85% in the community. We started to build our economy based upon the surrounding economy. Today, our unemployment rate is sometimes zero because we are connected to the economy around us and we are benefiting from it. That’s what we need. We need that kind of access to the resources and wealth that everyone else has been generating since the inception of the Crown coming over in the 1600s.
So it would be self-generating if we had the proper economic deal in this country, and I really appreciate Senator Arnot’s point about the treaty. Yes, it is about that original treaty relationship. More importantly, though, it’s about the inherent right that we have. Whether you have a treaty or not, we have inherent rights. We have God-given rights. We have Creator-given rights to these lands. We have responsibilities to our lands and waters. Prior to contact, we had a reciprocal, beneficial relationship with our lands and waters, so we have to now figure out in this modern age how to have that reciprocal, beneficial relationship again with the lands and waters given to us, given that we now have a colonial construct known as Canada on Turtle Island. I believe there is a path forward. I always talk about a healing path forward, and that includes economic reparations and proper economic development and generating that wealth and prosperity for First Nations, which is their birthright.
Ms. Caron: Thank you for your question. Yes, for Métis economic institutions, we currently have Métis capital corporations in each of the Métis provinces that loan funds to Métis-owned businesses. We also have economic development corporations that support the start-ups of Métis businesses, acquisitions and expansions of Métis-owned businesses. Métis people are inherently entrepreneurs — that’s who we are, and that is where we come from. There is a Cree word [Indigenous language spoken], which means, “They are their own boss,” which means people like to be their own boss as Métis people. The Métis economy was once very strong, and we would love to see the Métis economy become that strong again to support our Métis businesses and entrepreneurs. A strong Métis economy lends itself to a strong Canadian economy as well, so supporting that supports this country.
You had a question about the green economy. I think that’s a place where the Métis Nation absolutely contributes as well. We want to and we are sharing our stories as we contribute to the green economy.
One of the examples I love to talk about is out in Alberta, about an hour east of Edmonton, at Métis Crossing. If you ever have the opportunity to meet out there — to go and just visit those lands — it is owned by the Métis Nation of Alberta. It is a tourism site. It is a site that is revitalizing our culture. We have regained some of the river lots out there — the lands that our Métis people once owned. There is now a bison preserve out there, so our people can go and learn about the bison and how our people used to use and learn from the bison. They are now expanding into solar energy and building that.
This one space does so much for the Métis Nation, and it’s an incredible example of contributing to the green economy. Our Métis people have so many incredible opportunities, experiences and ideas to contribute to that. Like I say, when they contribute to the Métis economy, it contributes to Canada’s economy as well, and we want to be an equal partner there.
The Chair: I have a question for National Chief Archibald. The AFN has called for the creation of an independent centre for the resolution of specific claims. How might the proposed centre address challenges First Nations face in the specific claims process, and what was the federal government’s reaction to this proposal?
Ms. Archibald: Everyone is aware that all the claims processes in Canada are broken. They’re not conducive to properly and quickly settling the questions of Land Back and returning land to First Nations.
I can’t speak specifically to the report that you’re talking about. I don’t have any notes on that. But I do want to say that the AFN has always wanted to be a willing partner with the federal government to fix specific claims — comprehensive claims — and to fix those processes. I don’t think we should give up, even though we know that those processes take too long. I just had a meeting with the community, and a part of their settlement of a claim was the ability to buy land from a municipality that they were adjacent to. So they did, and 10 years later they still cannot convert that into their own land. So I think we have to figure out some of the questions around consultation with municipalities and with individual landholders.
How do we move that process forward in a way that ensures that when land does go back, it is actually designated as First Nation land and not land that is now taxable to the First Nation from the municipality?
The Chair: Senator Audette and I met earlier today with chiefs who had a lot of issues with the ATR, or additions-to-reserve, process. When I was a chief, I encountered those issues as well, so I can certainly relate to that.
Senator Martin: Thank you to both of you. As you were speaking, I thought you needed 10 times longer time to expand on each of your points. I have written a lot of notes for myself and I have questions on each point, but I’ll just ask one to each of you.
If I can start with National Chief Archibald, it’s exciting to hear about the priorities of economic development and prosperity. One of the things you mentioned is a national substance misuse strategy, which really got my attention. I know that hope is in the present generation for the future, so I think this is a very important strategy. I would love to hear more about what you were referring to.
Ms. Archibald: These two things are tied together. I want to go back to my own experience of being the chief who came in with that 85% unemployment. As we started to build our economy, which happened very quickly, one of the problems we had was addictions. We had people who would not show up for work because they were struggling with different kinds of addictions.
Solving the issues around economy is very much tied to healing. As I said, we have to co-develop this strategy. We have to be at the table to explain and be part of a comprehensive process that looks at not just the symptoms — because addiction is a symptom. Mental health is a symptom. When we have somebody with mental health issues, that’s a symptom of something much deeper.
I heard a chief say this in a community — I can’t recall his name — but he was saying in a meeting that it’s time for us to move beyond the symptoms and addressing the symptoms through strategies and begin to deal with the root causes. What is the cause of that kind of pain in people that they turn to addictions?
I have often said it myself in different speeches. When you see somebody, for example, in the Downtown Eastside, who is suffering from addictions, you’re actually looking at a survivor, somebody who has survived some kind of horrific trauma and is not coping and not healing from that. So when we look at any kind of strategy, we had better start looking at the root causes.
For First Nations, it is what I call those institutions of assimilation and genocide. I don’t call them schools anymore because that is not what they were. We have to look at that as one of the places where that hurt comes from. Horrible, horrific things happened in those institutions. You just have to read the TRC report to understand some of the stories of things that those children witnessed and lived through.
The other thing that is impacting us is colonization. It is ongoing. It’s not over. Colonization is an ongoing process. The genesis of the introduction of colonization here on Turtle Island has done nothing but create devastation in its wake for First Nations because it really was and is counter to who we are as a people in terms of our community and how we function in community settings.
I think that, ultimately, let’s look at root causes. If we can do that, then we can actually promote healing and we can get a society that is maybe not perfect — nothing ever is — but where that kind of hurt and those kinds of horrific things are healed in people one generation at a time.
I only look to my own experience. My parents both went to different institutions and they did their best to raise my siblings and I in a way that I have different skills that they didn’t have. Then it’s incumbent upon my generation to make sure that those skills are given back to our next generation, and it’s built up. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Martin: Yes, but is this strategy under development? I know you said it has to be co-created, but have you begun the planning process of this strategy?
Ms. Archibald: No, I am personally too high-level to know what those details are, but I can tell you that I did have a meeting with Élisabeth Brière, the Parliamentary Secretary to Carolyn Bennett, with the Sts’ailes leadership today, and there is going to be follow-up on the path forward with mental health and addictions within First Nations. I was told very briefly by one of her staff members that there is a component there around First Nations, and I’m really looking forward to learning more about it.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you. It’s nice to see a president, Ms. Caron, and our national chief, of course.
I’m from Mani-Utenam, an Innu nation on the North Shore. So when we talk about prosperity or a national prosperity table, I believe we too have the right to that agenda, to that meeting or that seat and the right to be a stakeholder in the economy on our land to protect it for the next seven generations. We have incredible resilience in that respect.
I really liked your opening remarks and I’m very encouraged by them because it’s discouraging: our grandparents were here, our parents were here, and as parents ourselves, we’re just repeating what’s already been said. We have to keep hope alive.
As you can see, the missionaries where I’m from were francophones, so I speak French and I’m learning Innu. When I hear about national movements, I want to be sure that the people in Ekuanitshit, Pakua Shipi and Obedjiwan — nations where they will barely speak French or speak it as a second language — can be there, communicate and take part in these national movements for prosperity.
I’d like to hear our national chief’s thoughts, and how your negotiations are going with the provinces and municipalities — because they’re having trouble sharing or fixing things that happened not so long ago. Municipalities make up another level of government. I don’t know if you’ve thought about things like that or if you can give us any promising leads.
[English]
Ms. Archibald: Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Audette. The prosperity table proposal is going to be approved hopefully next week by our Chiefs Committee on Economic Development. They have had a few opportunities to look at it and discuss it.
In that proposal, we are building capacity within regions. Each region — like the Quebec region, for example — will have capacity dollars for three years to figure out how to align the needs of that region with the national prosperity table. How do First Nations interact?
It would be different per region, but certainly, the idea really is that the Chiefs Committee on Economic Development at the AFN would be the first body that would interface with the federal government on how we start to build this model and how we start to create the new economic deal.
So there is definitely room there for First Nations. We just have to figure out what each region would want. I do want to assure you that my thoughts on this are very community-based. Because I have been a chief in my own community, I understand that when you get to the national level, you have to still think how this impacts people on the ground.
So it is definitely something that we have considered and it would unfold as we get that table going. I hope that answers.
The Chair: I will now begin round two.
Senator Arnot: I have a question for each of the witnesses. National Chief Archibald, you talked about the national council for reconciliation and concerns about its independence. One of the mechanisms you’re proposing is to have three members of that council appointed by the AFN. Are there any other independence issues that you think arise in that model? And are there any recommendations you have about any other aspect of independence?
Ms. Archibald: We recommended not only for the AFN, but we took into account the Métis National Council as well as the Inuit appointing. Between the three of us, our recommendation was that we are appointing the majority from our organizations: First Nations, Métis and Inuit people.
As it stands, the first draft of the act has the minister making that appointment, which to me is really a step backwards. It goes back to the Indian Act, where the minister makes all these decisions on behalf of us.
So the proposal really, whatever it ends up being, goes back to the saying “nothing about us without us.” So we have to get there with that particular piece of legislation.
Senator Arnot: My next question is for President Caron. I’m always interested in education and the power of education. You’re talking about an education accord. I’m just wondering: Is that curriculum or education resources? How would that be implemented in your opinion? Again, I just want to say as well that long-standing inequity about residential school experience is something that has been calling for a remedy for a long time. I’m very happy you mentioned that, and Senator Patterson amplified that. Thank you.
Ms. Caron: Thank you for the question, senator. With the 10‑year accord, that’s where we have been extremely successful in, first and foremost, negotiating that long-term funding. That’s where we see success if we can have that secure funding for the 10 years. We have seen that now in housing, in post-secondary education, a number of other areas, early learning and child care. Now we are exploring the K-12 system.
With that, we hope to implement a Métis-specific education program, develop education infrastructure, create classroom and teaching resources, really spend some time being able to educate educators about who Métis people are, where we come from, where we’re going, why our stories are very important to this country and develop more Métis educators, create more opportunities for our people to enter into that system, to be able to teach our people.
So those are the preliminary areas that we are hoping to explore with the 10-year program, or 10-year accord. Our children are just so important to the future of the Métis Nation. If we can get them off on a strong foot, we know that the future of this country will be in really good hands.
Senator Coyle: I didn’t get to probe National Chief Archibald on that green economy area with you. I know certainly that climate itself has been an issue for the AFN, an identified area, both in terms of mitigation, adaptation, building of resilience in communities as well as in terms of green economy leadership. Is there anything you would like to share with us on your plans and priorities related to those areas?
Ms. Archibald: Yes, thank you for asking. I realized when Ms. Caron was answering the question that I had missed answering that portion about the net-zero economy. I just wanted to reiterate some of the points she made. First Nations people, when we think about economic development, it’s important for many of us that we are being kind to the earth, as we have that reciprocal, mutually beneficial relationship that we had before contact and we continue to want to have that.
The best place is in the green economy because it aligns with our values. It aligns with the emerging deep and abiding care that non-Indigenous people have for the planet as well. It’s not just a First Nation, Indigenous issue. It’s an issue that more people across the whole planet are contemplating. How do we mitigate climate change? How do we build an economy at the same time? How do we balance these two things?
I wanted to go back again to my own experience of being a chief and thinking about forestry, for example. Forestry can be very difficult in that you’re taking the resource. But what gave us a sense of balance about it was that, one, we were replanting; two, we were protecting vast areas that were sacred to our people. So our agreements in forestry aren’t only about economics and harvesting trees. It’s about how we protect those areas from harvesting that have a sacred value to our community.
That, to me, is the path forward — having a sense of creating an economy, but balancing it with the protection of the earth. These things are not always easy to do, but I know that they are possible. So in our community, for example, we own a solar farm. Our hydro projects are run-of-the-river. In fact, one of the projects restored a dammed-up diversion. So those are the kinds of projects and national resources that we can look at.
Then I think about even people in urban areas. I always look to Squamish Nation, Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam in that Lower Mainland area and the work that they are doing to restore that sense of balance in their development of their economies as well. So it is something that First Nations always keep at the front of mind.
At the same time, there are First Nations who are being criticized for supporting a pipeline, for example. These things are not easy conversations, and there isn’t a black and white. I always want to tell people the world is not black and white. The world is a whole bunch of shades of everything. If we move away from a black-and-white kind of thinking when it comes to the economy and we start to contemplate a balanced approach to building an economy, then we don’t get into that kind of voracious taking up of the resource and extracting it and being damaging to the environment. So I think we have to think about the economy 100 years from now or 200 years from now, and think about where this economy is going, and how we’re going to get it to a place that allows us to continue to live as human beings on the planet. Because the earth will live, but we might not.
Senator Patterson: Thank you, National Chief Archibald, and thank you to both of you for very visionary presentations.
I was really happy to hear you lead off with economic development. Because, as you know, I come from a territory that would be the envy of the Métis. The Inuit own 18% of the land mass of Nunavut, which itself is 20% of Canada. They are guaranteed a share of resource revenues. They are in the driver’s seat on the regulatory process. This is how things should work in the country, like you’re saying.
I want to just say that this committee — and I’ve been on it going on 13 years — has taken a real interest in First Nations economic development. We did that by working, up until now, very closely with the First Nations Financial Management Board, the First Nations Tax Commission, Harold Calla and Manny Jules.
They have made enormous strides, as you know, in governance through the Financial Management Board, or FMB. They have been pushing for an infrastructure carve-out. They have arranged third-party financing, knowing government can’t do it all. They have talked about replacing receivers for bands that are in trusteeship instead of the accounting firms that are hired.
Manny Jules has told us recently he has an agreement with Finance Canada to share in revenues associated with the cannabis industry. I’m leading to a question.
Yes, the First Nations FMB has pushed the government for monetizing the grants and contributions, like Senator Arnot was saying, so you don’t go from year to year but you can monetize it and get long-term financing.
So we have made a lot of progress. We have improved the legislation. I just want to know, in your national prosperity table, are you going to build on what the FMB and the First Nations Tax Commission have done to progress in this area?
Ms. Archibald: I wouldn’t say we would build on it. It would certainly be something that we would look at as models that have been produced to date.
What I am talking about, and the vision that we have for this table, is actually — as Senator Arnot said — to fulfill those obligations under the treaty and with respect to our inherent rights. So it’s a bigger, wider kind of process. It isn’t just this corporation or that corporation that deals with pieces of the economy. It’s larger.
Senator Patterson: The First Nations FMB works with bands, really.
Ms. Archibald: Yes.
Senator Patterson: You are talking about a much higher-level, big-picture approach to prosperity.
Ms. Archibald: Yes, exactly. You mentioned there is one thing in the proposal that talks about funding. We do need an investment in economic development. That is substantial. We need an entrepreneur fund, which we don’t have nationally.
We need a partnership fund for First Nations who are going to partner in projects whether those are resource projects or projects around real estate. We need a partnership fund.
Senator Patterson: The Canada Infrastructure Bank had carved out a part for Indigenous projects. Is that something that you are looking at, or would that be a start?
Ms. Archibald: Yes. I wanted to finish one more thing that you mentioned, though, which is an equity fund. First Nations, because of the way the Indian Act is impacting us, we don’t have the ability to borrow. We have to figure out equity pieces through the prosperity table.
I want to tell you, again, my experience. We received $250,000 to negotiate our forestry agreements. Those forestry agreements are worth $500 million over a 20-year period. We took $250,000 and turned it into $500 million. That’s the investment that Canada has to make into economic development.
For every dollar, there is a 1,000% return on investment. The amounts that are being invested or set aside for First Nations for economic development are so unbelievably low.
With the proper resources, we could actually create an economic powerhouse, so to speak, that would be working with our partners, which would be all of Canada at the end.
Senator Patterson: That’s good.
The FMB has done exactly that. They have certified bands and developed good governance models to arrange first-class, low‑interest financing and bonds.
What I’m hoping to hear is that you’re going to involve the FMB and the Tax Commission because they are highly regarded and they have a listening ear in Ottawa. They have engineered a number of improvements to the legislation over the years — small steps, I know.
I would hope that their experience can support your national effort to do more because, to me, own-source resources equals independence. Nobody wants to be dependent on the government.
I wish you well.
Ms. Archibald: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson.
We have time for one more question from Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Senator Arnot asked one of my questions about the education piece, which I’m very excited about. Your answer was very enlightening.
Senator Patterson, today was a day I started a meeting with Manny Jules and I just had a meeting with Geordie Hungerford, who is the CEO of FMB. I echo what you have said. I agree that we have two visionary leaders in front of us. We have heard a lot today.
One overarching question to you, President Caron: What effect has the Canada-Métis Nation Accord had upon the relationship between the Métis National Council and the federal government?
Ms. Caron: I was an evaluator in my past life. It would be fascinating to do an evaluation to understand exactly all of the impacts that the Canada-Métis Nation Accord has had on the Métis Nation specifically.
From what I can see, from what I know, the investment that we have been able to negotiate through that permanent bilateral mechanism process has significantly supported our communities. It has significantly supported citizens on the ground in our communities.
It’s interesting, because it came right after the Daniels decision in 2016, where it was finally decided or made known that Métis fall under the fiduciary duty of Canada. There was that jurisdictional hot potato up until 2016. We are really far behind our relatives, the First Nations and Inuit as well.
The Canada-Métis Nation Accord came quickly after the Daniels decision. From there, really we were down here. We skyrocketed extremely quickly because of that. But it was also because of that Daniels decision that we were able to start those actual negotiations with the federal government.
We have seen significant investment. We have made significant progress. We have so much more to do. We do look forward to continuing the process with Canada to negotiate those investments, but also to continue the conversations on developing and implementing policies within the federal government that are going to really affect Métis people, to make sure that there is always that distinctions-based lens that is applied to legislation, to policies as we move forward, because that’s really critical to ensuring that Métis perspectives are heard, are made known and that we’re doing this in partnership.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Martin.
The time for this panel is now complete. Again, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to National Chief Archibald and President Caron for joining us today.
I will remind everyone that we are continuing to hear from the witnesses with the goal of informing and guiding the future work of our committee.
For our next panel, I wish to welcome from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Carol McBride, President; and Sarah Niman, Legal Counsel. Wela’lin and thank you for joining us this evening. You will have approximately five minutes to make opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session of approximately five minutes per senator. Due to time constraints, please keep exchanges brief and precise.
Carol McBride, President, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Hello, honourable senators. I am Carol McBride, the newly elected president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathering on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, my homeland. Meegwetch for inviting NWAC to appear this evening. In my submission, when I refer to Indigenous women, I am speaking of the women, girls, two‑spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people that NWAC uplifts through our work.
At the beginning of my term, I made a commitment that I would advocate to ensure that the 231 Calls for Justice issued by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, or MMIWG, would be enacted by all levels of government. NWAC is doing its part to end this genocide. Our MMIWG unit runs the Safe Passage project, an interactive map that tracks cases and community-reported unsafe experiences. NWAC’s MMIWG data collection helps inform our work and documents the realities of Indigenous women across this country. Unfortunately, the team is adding incidents of risk and death to the map on a regular basis. We all have work to do to end this genocide so that our next generations will have a safer future.
I also made a commitment to fight for equal access to training opportunities, education, health care, mental health and housing for Indigenous women and their children. Intergenerational trauma from colonization continues to harm our people, and we need to continue support to reclaim our power and place as matriarchs of our nations. NWAC, working at the national level and with our provincial and territorial member associations, has increased the presence of Indigenous women in the workforce. Our #BeTheDrum business incubator helps Indigenous women develop networks to grow their businesses. Our ISET and National Apprenticeships Program offer skill building and employment training opportunities to Indigenous women so they can move out of their entry-level jobs and into careers in the labour force.
We are improving Indigenous women’s health outcomes by combatting racism in health care. We are decolonizing maternity experiences, approaches to aging and dementia, cannabis education and promoting traditional food and agricultural practices. We are helping women reclaim their bodily autonomy.
NWAC’s Generation 4 Equality project is testing an intense healing and empowering program for human trafficking survivors and those vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
In addition, as part of our national recovery model, NWAC established a resiliency centre in Quebec, and one is under construction in New Brunswick.
NWAC is very concerned about forced sterilization and the birth-alert practices that target Indigenous women. There is no room within reconciliation for a health system that treats Indigenous women this way. Similarly, racism in the criminal justice system results in disproportionate rates of incarceration of our women.
NWAC is decolonizing women’s health in federal prisons with its Walking the RED Path project, a culturally safe and trauma‑informed workshop series. It is one source of support, but the entire justice system must work to reconcile with Indigenous women.
NWAC is working on projects and advocacy to eliminate racism in the Indian Act. I am enthusiastic about the work NWAC is doing to shape how Canada implements the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada is building its action plan to align its laws with UNDRIP. This will breathe life into Canada’s promises of reconciliation because UNDRIP ensures our right to self-determination.
Advancing Indigenous women’s self-determination and equity requires a culturally relevant, gender-based intersectional analysis be applied to any bill, issue or decision that impacts Indigenous women. This approach recognizes the diverse identities, experiences and needs of Indigenous women and values our unique ways of knowing.
Canada has a crucial relationship with NWAC, cemented in the Canada-NWAC Accord and revealed in the ways we relate to each other on occasions like today. For Canada to honour its relationship with NWAC, it must continue to include us in decisions that impact Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. NWAC honours this relationship by sharing our experiences and recommending ways that Canada can dismantle systems that continue to harm us.
With that, honourable members, I would like to thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Wela’lin, thank you, President McBride.
Before we go to questions, I wish to remind everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when you do so.
I will now open up the floor for questions.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, President McBride, for your presentation and coming today to help us in our work. Is there one or two priorities that you have in your work that you think the Senate can help you on?
Ms. McBride: After being with NWAC for the last three months, I see my priority in the healing aspect. Healing has to take place in all our communities. Right now, from coast to coast to coast, we are all suffering. Our youth, they’re killing themselves left and right, and it’s for a reason. I think that reason is intergenerational trauma. We’re starting to really feel the effects. That’s a priority for me.
I have been chief for many years and I know how women suffer. That would be another aspect of where I would like to go: giving the tools to our women to be able to be part of the workforce, to be part of society. That will make a big impact on their families in terms of job opportunities, housing and anything that would bring better quality of life to their families.
Those are my priorities, and I am very proud to say that those are shared by all the Provincial, Territorial Member Associations, or PTMAs, that I represent.
Senator Arnot: We have dealt with the registration provisions under the Indian Act and the continuing inequity there. Do you have any comments about what we as the Senate should be doing to try to advance that? I know that you have had discussions with the Minister of Indigenous Services. I’m wondering where you are at on that issue and what you think we can do to best advance that part of your agenda.
Sarah Niman, Legal Counsel, Assistant Manager Legal Services, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Our legal unit has just completed over a year of comprehensive studies with our grassroots members, asking them what we can do tangibly to fix the inequities that remain in the Indian Act without having to resort to suing the government for every incremental step forward.
What we have concluded is that rather than taking a piecemeal approach, chipping away at the remaining inequities, there needs to be ambitious sweeping change to the registration provisions so that they stop dividing families up among their households based on arbitrary birthdates or cut-offs or second-generation limits, because it’s not fair for parents to be looking to their young children and having to explain that by virtue of their birthdate, they are entitled to different things than their cousins. It doesn’t make sense on paper or in families’ hearts.
The other thing within the registration provisions that we are seeing is that there is very convoluted language. When people are trying to understand what their rights are under the registration provisions, it is very difficult for them to interpret, even with access to legal services, and to understand what their rights are.
The government knows this and has heard this, and we would ask this committee, in their work as senators, to remind everyone that the obligation at the heart of all this is to advance reconciliation, not to get your back against the wall and have to be told through lawsuit after lawsuit to get rid of the remaining inequities. The path forward will be looking to UNDRIP and what that says about self-determining membership rights.
Senator Coyle: I was actually going to ask that last question.
First, I would like to thank both of you for being with us this evening. Could you, President McBride, speak to us a little more about these resiliency centres that you mentioned, the one that is in Quebec already and the one coming in New Brunswick? I would like to understand more about that.
Ms. McBride: They are lodges that are being used as a healing place for families. I know the one here in Quebec has different people that help with the process of healing. Families or women can go there and have those supports that are much needed, depending on the kind of healing that is available for them there.
We need a lot more than what we have right now in terms of financial resources, but what we would like to see is having these resiliency lodges all over, one per province at the very least, to help with the healing.
As you know, a lot of our provincial bodies don’t have healing places. Whatever they would see as their healing priorities, that would be for them to determine how the healing process would be in these resiliency lodges.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Is the one that you’re speaking about in Quebec the one that is close by here?
Ms. McBride: In Chelsea?
Senator Coyle: Yes. I’ve seen pictures of it. It looks amazing. It looks like a place of calm and serenity and nature.
Can you explain to us how it’s being used now? It’s fairly new.
Ms. McBride: Yes, it is. Right now there are people hired there to help with the process of healing. A person could go there and get those supports that they need. It’s a beautiful place. You can practise cultural — there is bathing, all kinds of crafts and things that you can do. There is also a swimming pool that people can use for physical healing. There are elders there who can give guidance and counselling as well.
We’ve just started. Can you imagine how things will be in a few years to come, and what we’ll be able to offer our people?
Senator Coyle: The vision is to have them across the country?
Ms. McBride: That’s right. The one in New Brunswick, I think, is like a farmhouse, and they’ll be doing planting and things like that. There will be other aspects of what can be done there.
The whole process would be healing oneself, getting that support and having someone to talk to, things like that.
Is there anything that you would like to add?
Ms. Niman: You’ve covered it well.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just to follow up on the previous question by Senator Arnot, we have heard that the federal government does not want to proceed with addressing issues like the second-generation cut-off, because it wants to do more consultation.
Would you agree that more consultation is needed, or do we already have a road map to address all the remaining discrimination in the Indian Act?
Ms. Niman: I think at this point — I’ll go ahead and answer because we’ve studied on this — any path forward should be held in our nation-to-nation relationship. Any path forward needs to involve consultation with the people it impacts.
I think what we realize now is there has been consultation, round after round, about the remaining inequities. We know what they are. We know how they are operating, and we know what we can do to stop them.
What we need is the ambition and the political will to get behind them. It’s a big undertaking to undo what is over a century of assimilationist policy, but I think at the core of it, until that stops, the assimilationist residue is still built into the act. It is still eliminating the number of people, generation to generation, who can claim their membership under the way that the government recognizes.
Yes, consultation is important, but NWAC doesn’t want to see it be another barrier or roadblock to meaningful progress. Consultations should be conversations with productive outcomes.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Would you agree that the piecemeal approach has not been effective to date?
Ms. Niman: The piecemeal approach is not effective.
When you move the marker stick incrementally further down afield at the pace that it is, generations are waiting for equities that their grandmothers and great-grandmothers hoped to see in their lifetimes and simply are not.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: We’re part of the generation where my mother was kicked out of her community for marrying the most handsome Quebecer, and stories like ours are unfortunately still very common. People are dying and they haven’t regained their rights or seen their rights respected.
Have women in Canada considered filing a class-action lawsuit against the federal government due to the Indian Act, because we’re going to lose our status?
When I was president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC), I had the privilege, right or responsibility to sit down with national organizations, the federal government and all the provinces to discuss the status of women, justice and various matters under the different levels of government. I understand that the AFAC no longer has that seat, and hasn’t since maybe 2016? What happened? Do you feel it’s important to have that voice again with various levels of government and national organizations?
[English]
Ms. McBride: I definitely find it important that we have to take part in this discussion, for sure. Just lately, we have received a bit of funding to be able to start discussions again on the Indian Act, and we’re hoping to be able to move that along and pick up from where it was left off. Definitely. I’m hoping that women — like your mother or your grandmother — are finally able to get that recognition that they so — not badly need — but need.
I remember working — I was just a young girl at that time — with Mary Two-Axe Earley, and there has been improvement, but we have a long way to go yet.
Definitely, with the little bit of resources that we did get to look at the Indian Act, again, I’m hoping to get a lot more clarity on what’s going on across the country and what the feedback is of our women.
Sarah, would you like to add on to that as well?
Ms. Niman: Your first question, I think, was asking whether or not NWAC would pursue the legal option of a class action to sort of —
Senator Audette: [Technical difficulties]
Ms. Niman: Yes. At this point, NWAC doesn’t think that the way forward is more litigation, to put it squarely. We’ve seen the outcomes of it, and the Indigenous women advocates who have come before us have certainly made advances — sometimes at great personal sacrifice — to move the yardstick further afield and increase equality for Indigenous women.
That said, that does turn to another option that I think UNDRIP advances, and that is the spirit of redress for past harms. This is something that NWAC has looked at in the framework of the Indian Act. Once we recognize that these harms have happened, that women have been excluded from their families and that they have missed out on opportunities and continue to miss out on funding opportunities when they are not recognized as status members, then there is an opportunity for the government to offer a redress initiative. This would be as an alternative to seeking redress through settlements in class actions.
It’s an option that is on the table. NWAC itself doesn’t offer those kinds of front-line legal services, initiating actions like that, but what we have seen and what we have heard from the people we have spoken to is that the feeling is more in the spirit of redress and remedying past harms. It would be much more meaningful for the relationship between Indigenous women and Canada moving forward, and in the spirit of reconciliation, to have those harms recognized and then remedied.
Senator Audette: And the second question?
Ms. Niman: As to your second question about our inclusion at the table, I think President McBride has said yes, we need to be at those tables and we need to have our voices heard because Indigenous women’s experiences are distinct from Indigenous men.
When the default is to just seek out Indigenous perspectives on issues, whether they are justice or health care, when an Indigenous female perspective is left out of the equation, we know from the over 700 pages of The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls that such exclusion has dire consequences, violent consequences. We can look at our jails that are full of over half of Indigenous women federally and see the consequences of excluding Indigenous women’s perspectives. The stakes are quite high when Indigenous women are excluded from even high-level government conversations. The trickle-down effect is apparent, and we can all see it.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I have so many questions because your work is so important. The first one is about serving Indigenous women across Canada. I am wondering what you do in terms of Indigenous women in urban, rural and on-reserve communities. How do you manage to serve that very large constituency of women who are part of NWAC?
Ms. Niman: NWAC represents the voices of Indigenous women, inclusive of girls, gender-diverse, trans and two-spirit people. This is inclusive of First Nation, Inuit, on-reserve, off‑reserve, status and non-status.
Practically speaking, which I think is what you’re asking, how do we ensure those voices are heard? One of the things that we have found most effective, and honestly, as a by-product of the pandemic, was the opportunity for virtual engagement. That’s not to say that face-to-face and on-the-land engagements, discussions and gatherings aren’t important. They are very important.
But the shift to the virtual realm during the pandemic showed us that we have the opportunity to connect, through devices, with people who are so much more diverse. That means we get to hear and seek out specific feedback from gender-diverse youth on a topic that we know will impact them. Sometimes we call it the “underground grandmother train,” and we’ll ask, “Who do you know?” We get people to participate in our conversations in this way. So when we have to come up with a position or a path forward on a certain issue, we get to feel that perspective is truly representative of all the people we’re seeking to represent.
The limits of that, of course, are that when there are communities that are prohibited from accessing reliable internet, we don’t always get to hear from them. Then we have to come up with workarounds. I will say that our engagement so far that we have been able to do over the past two plus years has broadened our reach and our access at the grassroots level through devices and screens.
Ms. McBride: I know for myself, since I have gotten in as president, I have clear communication with all PTMAs across the country. In fact, they take two a week to get updates and letting them know what is going on. We’re really a grassroots organization. We really want to hear from our PTMAs and help advocate on their behalf.
Senator Coyle: This is just educating me or reminding me — I should know the answers to these questions. Regarding the relationship between NWAC and the two organizations we had sitting at the table here before you, as well as Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and I know there is an Inuit women’s association as well, can you speak about your relationship with those other national bodies?
Ms. McBride: I can only answer questions on what I’m doing as president. I’m building relationships. I want to work with the AFN, and I want to work with the Métis. That’s what I am doing — building those bridges with these organizations as well.
I find it unfortunate what I have experienced in the last month or so, which is the exclusion of NWAC from different tables, and I don’t find that right. We are the holder of a lot of good information that would be very pertinent to these tables, to these issues, and we have been left out. I don’t find that right.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. I wondered about that.
Senator Patterson: Ms. McBride, you started off tonight with stating your goal of seeing the 231 Calls for Justice from the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry enacted. You talked about your MMIWG document unit, and I want to ask you about that. Hearing that you track the sad incidents of death brought to mind the mother of 10 from my home community who was found in Vanier three days ago after being missing for five years. So it’s going on, it’s not over, and we have to keep shining a light on these tragedies, and there are lots more, as we all know.
This is important information that you have. Is it publicly available? Could it be shared? I know it would be always evolving. Could the committee get a snapshot of it? I’m really grateful you’re doing that.
Ms. McBride: Yes, that information is available and it is being given to a place where you can go, and it’s there for all.
It also identifies the danger zones. It’s small, but it’s about where you can get a safe ride, taxi or whatever, so it enables a lot of good information to be given out to help.
Senator Patterson: Could you share that with the committee through the clerk?
Ms. McBride: Yes.
Senator Patterson: I think we would appreciate that. Can I ask another question? Pardon my ignorance, but you talked about forced sterilization, and a committee of our Senate is studying that issue, as you know. But I have not heard of the birth alert program. I understand it’s a bad program. Can you enlighten us on that, please?
Ms. McBride: What I understand it to be — and you can help me as well — is that if welfare knows that you’re a mother having a child and you might be having problems, maybe financially or whatever, the hospital alerts welfare, and then they come and get the child. They apprehend the baby.
Senator Patterson: I see. I have heard of that.
Ms. McBride: That’s terrible, depending on what the circumstances are. As we all know, with the apprehension of a child, they should be offering help instead of taking the child away. I’m speaking as a mother now and a grandmother. I think there are other ways of protecting that child.
Senator Patterson: Of course. You mentioned forced sterilization. Is that a current issue?
Ms. McBride: Oh, my goodness. I have to tell you my reaction when I read the reports.
I was shocked to find out that that is still going on today. That is horrible. It should be criminalized for any doctors or nurses who do that to our women.
I noticed one thing when I was reading the report, which is that they do that when women are in hard labour or at the point of breaking. It just sickens me to hear what is still going on today. That has to stop. Something has to be done in the judicial system to make these doctors and nurses accountable for what they are doing to our families.
There were women who didn’t even know that they were being sterilized. They found out later on that they couldn’t have children anymore. That’s horrible. I kind of get very upset.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Senator Pate joined us. Welcome.
Senator Martin: I wish I could ask you to continue on what you were talking about, such a serious and important topic.
My question is simply in relation to what you said about your exclusion at different tables. You mentioned in your presentation the Canada-NWAC Accord. Could you speak to the relationship with the federal government right now and why you have been excluded? You are a very important voice, so I’m trying to understand. Are other groups being invited instead of your organization? You seem to be an umbrella organization, so could you please clarify?
Ms. McBride: I have only been in here for three months, and maybe it would be better if Ms. Niman answered that one.
Ms. Niman: You’re right to notice that there is a discrepancy. There is an existence of an NWAC-Canada Accord that clearly outlines what that relationship is supposed to look like. It’s one founded in the spirit of inclusion and advancing the specific and unique perspectives of Indigenous women and a pattern of exclusion.
Now, I don’t think it helps the conversation to lay blame or to guess at why that might be, other than to say that there is no limit to the number of Indigenous perspectives that can be shared at the table, so we don’t advance a position that says we should be there instead of anybody else, or that anybody is taking our spot. I would be hesitant to guess at why the exclusion is happening — if it’s an oversight or something else.
All we can say is that the reasons why Indigenous women’s voices need to be included are well known and, as we referenced, are all recorded. We don’t need to go over them again. And we have asked on a few occasions for Canada’s federal government to return to the NWAC-Canada Accord and honour its promises, which is really what it comes down to.
Senator Martin: When did the exclusion begin?
Ms. Niman: It’s a pattern. It’s not a consistent pattern. Sometimes we do get included to participate and share our voices and perspectives and knowledge. But sometimes it’s just a matter of opening up the newspaper and seeing that, you know, a table has sat, or a committee has got together, or a round-table discussion has happened, and we kind of walk away thinking, “Well, how can they come up with a solution that is going to improve the lives of Indigenous women when they didn’t ask for that perspective?”
Like we’ve mentioned, when there is an across-the-board neutral approach to just say, “Let’s get Indigenous perspectives,” that’s what we call in the law a formal equality approach. It just assumes that if you treat everybody the same, everybody will experience similar impacts.
What we’re advancing is a substantive equality approach, which means that when you recognize across the plain that Indigenous women’s experiences make them more vulnerable to being excluded and disempowered, you correspondingly have to make more of an effort to go and seek out their voices.
Ms. McBride: Take for instance the justice table; they just had their meeting a few weeks ago. Once I found out that there was this table that was being formed, or they were meeting, I called Minister Lametti’s office to find out why NWAC wasn’t involved or invited. I never got a call back.
Not long ago, I got a call saying that he wants to have a meeting with us, so I’m looking forward to that meeting. I don’t like closing the doors on anyone; I want to be a partner with these important tables. I think we have a lot to offer.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again express my sincere gratitude to Ms. McBride and Ms. Niman for joining us this evening.
(The committee adjourned.)