THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 2, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 10:01 a.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, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, or APPA. I will ask committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: I am Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: [Words spoken in Innu-Aimun.] Michèle Audette from Quebec. [Words spoken in Innu-Aimun.]
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, the best of Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Senators, today we are continuing our study into the effectiveness of the Canadian human rights framework in the promotion, protection and realization of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Specifically, we are considering whether existing mechanisms could be improved or whether new ones are required, including Indigenous-specific.
I would now like to introduce our witness. As an individual, we have Jeremy Matson with us today.
Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Matson.
Mr. Matson will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. We now invite Mr. Matson to give his opening remarks.
Jeremy Matson, as an individual: Good morning senators. I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples for its steadfast work on correcting and advancing Indigenous human rights here in Canada.
My name is Jeremy Matson. I am a Squamish Nation member and have direct ancestral connections and ties to the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and other Coast Salish communities.
It is a privilege to be here today to discuss the Call for Justice 1.7 of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, “. . . to establish a National Indigenous and Human Rights Ombudsperson . . . and to establish a National Indigenous and Human Rights Tribunal.”
A national Indigenous human rights framework is long overdue. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, or CHRC, in its 2008 report Still A Matter of Rights also suggested this process on page 14.
This potential human rights framework is a vital step toward Indigenous sovereignty and state sovereignty working toward reconciliation. The Canadian Human Rights Act system, provincial and territorial human rights structures and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms all need reforms when dealing with Indigenous people and their human rights, including the ramifications of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding Matson and Andrews. These decisions have limited the types of complaints that can be brought from First Nations people and non-Indigenous people.
This has been used in the Yukon in Ladue and in Phillips in B.C. to limit those human rights jurisdictions, all federal human rights complaints and now non-Indigenous complaints about legislation, provisions and wording of an act.
Access to justice is a human right. It is in each United Nations treaty, declarations, principles, general comments and thematic United Nations special procedures reports for member states. Access to justice is written into the treaties, declarations and structures of the Organization of American States.
International law provides for minimum human rights standards, and according to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, or CEDAW, at paragraphs 26 and 27 of General Recommendation 39, there are six interrelated components:
. . . justiciability, availability, accessibility, good quality, provision of remedies for victims, and accountability of justice systems . . . .
. . . States must ensure that all justice systems, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, act in a timely fashion to offer appropriate and effective remedies . . . .
The national Indigenous human rights ombudsperson structures have to meet the Paris Principles. If this is not met, then it will be viewed as another colonial construct. If the Paris Principles are not met, it will deprive this potential new human rights structure the same powers as the Canadian Human Rights Commission as our National Human Rights Institute, or NHRI. If this is not met, Indigenous sovereignty will be seen as inferior to state sovereignty, and the colonial reign will be apparent.
The guiding principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and other accenting international laws need to be at the core of the foundation of this process. There is an abundance of resources for this committee to reference about the standards and constructs of National Human Rights Institutes and the responsibilities as a quasi-jurisdictional and quasi-judicial body.
The potential new human rights ombudsperson should be invited to be a member of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, known as CASHRA, as Indigenous people are in all jurisdictions of Canada.
The new human rights body should also be a member of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutes, or GANHRI. As a member of the alliance, the new human rights ombudsperson can be accredited. There should be an office of the ombudsperson in all provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions provides a thorough understanding of what an NHRI is seen as through the UNDRIP lens. This 152-page manual from the UN outlines the Paris Principles and National Human Rights Institutes through the UNDRIP lens. Chapter 8 provides states guidance under Articles 39, 40 and 42 of UNDRIP with the Paris Principles and guidance from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Chapter 9, titled “Investigations and complaints,” is important as it ties in Articles 40 and 42 of UNDRIP and the Paris Principles.
Another important United Nations manual is titled National Human Rights Institutions: History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities. This manual sets out the structures of NHRIs, and it outlines six potential NHRI constructs, including ombudspersons. The last construct of the six is mentioned at page 19, titled “Multiple institutions,” and it provides the exact situation we are discussing here today: multiple National Human Rights Institutes in a state, including that of Indigenous.
Thank you. Those are my opening remarks.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Matson. I now invite our deputy chair to open the round of questions.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Matson, for coming today. I think you bring a unique and very important voice to these issues given your history of having to deal with the existing human rights framework in Canada. It’s very clear that Indigenous people in this country lack confidence in the existing models. I am glad you mentioned the Paris Principles. I think this is a unique opportunity to think outside the colonial models, as you’ve said. It’s very unique.
I am wondering what guidelines or what advice you might have about constructing a model, or various models, which perhaps would be regionally specific in Canada. What are your thoughts about how to actually go about that? What do you see it looking like?
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question, Senator Arnot. It’s always a privilege to try to answer your questions.
On structures, there’s lots of feedback from international bodies, including the United Nations special procedures and various treaty bodies. They have several guidelines. I pointed to those in other briefs that I provided to your committee in the past year.
When it comes to structures, as ombudsperson, one person sitting at the helm has been slightly criticized, but there are ways around that. There is an advisory committee or panel that helps to aid the ombudsperson, so it’s not one point of view. Then there’s the deputy ombudsperson. A deputy ombudsperson could be for each sector of human rights, so there could be one just for women, children, housing and the list goes on in terms of the deputies underneath the actual ombudsperson.
Then we have other structures here in Canada that provide quite a bit of guidance when it comes to structures. I will point to the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner because that’s one of the newest constructs here in Canada in terms of human rights structure — and the B.C. Human Rights Code. I always gravitated toward that. Under their code, section 47.01 to section 47.24 outlines the commissioner’s structures and responsibilities. There are quite a few different things that your committee might be able to take from that.
They set out guidelines under sections 47.15 and 47.16 about inquiries. Inquiries are important when dealing with systemic issues because individual complaints might not be able to be dealt with through a friendly settlement or some kind of mediation. When we’re dealing with the Indian Act and the humongous numbers of people who fall under the Indian Act, some of these systemic issues are best dealt with through an inquiry process.
When we go further on about the inquiry process through the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner’s structure, section 47.19 of their code is a really powerful provision of that code. It gives weight when their commissioner provides a report on an inquiry. It says that it’s the same finding as the Supreme Court of British Columbia. So when we have a commissioner given a quasi-judicial power like that, it gives that structure or this potential new ombudsperson the equivalent of a court’s judicial ruling. That’s something you don’t see in a lot of other codes here in Canada across the jurisdiction of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies.
There are other international structures such as the American Convention on Human Rights that has structures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights through that American Convention on Human Rights also provides some guidance.
Hopefully that might answer some of your questions.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much. That’s excellent, thank you.
The Chair: The floor is open for questions, senators.
Mr. Matson, as we continue the study on the effectiveness of human rights institutions for Indigenous peoples, what other witnesses might you suggest we hear from?
Mr. Matson: I think you already heard from Professor Naiomi Metallic. As you know, she has done a thorough workup on access to justice.
Thinking of other witnesses — I saw in a different panel that you had called upon a whole host of provincial and territorial jurisdictions. There are other members of CASHRA who might want to be called about some of these issues. As you know, I hold a communication before the United Nations about access to justice for Indigenous peoples here in Canada because the two structures — and now into the provinces and territories — we’re limited, especially in the provinces and territories under section 91 of the Constitution Act.
Professor Anne Levesque is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa. She is a very well-informed human rights professor, and was on Cindy Blackstock’s case at the beginning stages.
I can think of a lot of others, but I would have to provide you with the information later.
The Chair: Send a list into the clerk, please. This was not to put you on the spot now.
Mr. Matson: Yes, I will.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Mr. Matson.
Knowing that our mothers — and that is the case for many of us — were expelled because they married someone without status, like a Quebecer, or for all sorts of reasons, because of the Indian Act, we discriminate against women, and now we discriminate against men and women.
We know that in our communities, the federal government has given up on Indigenous leadership by saying: “Take these families back and we’re going to give you more land and more houses.” We’re talking about the 1980s and 1990s, but that didn’t happen. So, it’s going to create in our communities, if you agree with me, Mr. Matson, a form of discrimination and lateral violence against unregistered and registered people under sections 6(1) and 6(2).
With time, we realize that we are embracing a colonial and discriminatory law, so that today we don’t even know why we are doing this to women and children, or against people like you and your family.
If there is a goal to be achieved with respect to the work of an individual or individuals, within an ombudsman’s office and a tribunal for the rights of Indigenous peoples, how do we strike a balance? I can already see the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations, the leaders of the Indigenous peoples — maybe not the Métis, because of the Indian Act — but especially the leaders of the First Nations saying, “Don’t come and tell us how to do things at home, but we can continue to discriminate against people at home; we’re just going to account for the situations where Canada is at fault.”
How do we find the balance to get back to the fact that the root is colonial? If I personally want to file a complaint as an Innu woman, I’m not sure I’m supported by all the chiefs in Canada in this dream of an ombudsman and an Indigenous court.
I don’t know if you can help me, because you’ve talked about this many times: sometimes it’s our band councils that block us. How can we find a hybrid approach when we are dealing with a colonial law that belongs to Canada and is imposed by Canada, when we also have a responsibility to the citizens?
Have you thought about this and do you have any suggestions for us?
[English]
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question.
As you know, Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-3 people and other scenarios of women, their descendants and our children continue to — the Government of Canada discharges us when we are granted section 6 Indian status, and then they leave us right there and don’t provide us any community rehabilitation.
There is a manual for National Human Rights Institutes for internally displaced people. That’s who Bill C-31, Bill C-3 and Bill S-3 people are. They are internally displaced people through human rights violations of the Government of Canada and its policies.
When individuals bring cases forward, and, in this case, the avenues in Canada are not accessible. That has been established by the United Nations in my case, and also jurisprudence going up to the Supreme Court in Matson and Andrews with the Canadian Human Rights Act. As I had said to Senator Arnot, providing an inquiry, which you sat on — it was a very important inquiry — but having an ombudsperson provide an inquiry from an Indigenous perspective using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international law because the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur and other treaty bodies have all said that not only do state governments have to adhere to universal law, Indigenous governments and their laws and procedures also have to do the same.
It’s a duty of every single government in our jurisdiction of Turtle Island to adhere to international law and make sure the standards and norms, especially with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples passed by the federal government in June of 2021 and coming into full force next month, are respected. Having the UN declaration speaking to other governments saying that your law and procedures are not up to these minimum human rights standards, any reasonable government would say — and especially the support for the UN declaration and it being implemented here in Canada and other norms — it is essential because an inquiry from an ombudsperson would take the relief off individuals. An inquiry can deal with multitudes of systemic issues and multiple human rights violations. If there is a quasi-judicial weight that comes along with that through legislation, then communities would use it as an informative piece of literature, and it has binding material when the ombudsperson would guide the federal government and First Nations governments.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Welcome back, Mr. Matson, good to see you again. You are always very helpful to us. Your testimony is rich and thoughtful.
We know that you have had your own frustrations with the existing Canadian human rights apparatus, and you’ve told us that you feel that the Call for Justice 1.7 — which asked for the establishment of the national Indigenous human rights ombudsperson by all governments in partnership with Indigenous peoples and the national Indigenous and human rights tribunal — is long overdue, so we know where you stand on that.
You have given us good guidance on what needs to be done as we move toward achieving the results that are being asked for in that Call for Justice.
We’ve had Jennifer Moore Rattray here speaking to us, the Ministerial Special Representative. She has a big job and has all kinds of ways she could go about her job as she puts together recommendations.
Do you have any advice or suggestions on what kind of engagement you would see to be fruitful and essential with Indigenous peoples and communities that would help her move that process forward toward the outcome that is desired?
Mr. Matson: So guidance for the special representative — I didn’t see her testimony, so I would have to see what she said.
The Indigenous Bar Association should be consulted about this. The Canadian Bar Association also has their Aboriginal Law Section. There are a bunch of brilliant members and minds that would be able to give you some feedback about structures that would come into place for her.
I would suggest to her that there are different ways to go about this. Our current Canadian Human Rights Commission, a federal body, doesn’t have offices in the provinces and territories even though they should. They only have one in Ottawa and a small office in Winnipeg. I think having multiple offices in all jurisdictions would be beneficial for the special representative. That would be feedback. To travel and then also to have staff from a national location come to each person who is complaining is not efficient for human resources or for true unfolding of access to justice.
I don’t have too much to give her as feedback. In a written submission, I could provide you more feedback to your question.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, much appreciated.
Senator Sorensen: Good morning, nice to see you again. I will go back to your testimony when you were before us last, and also certainly to comments made today and talk about your personal case of passing your status on to your children.
I hear so many witnesses in this committee, I’m often left then wondering what the answer is, and I’m not sure you will have the answer. Do you believe the federal government has any role to play in determining who has status or is the answer that it’s individual communities across this vast and diverse country of ours who should have that responsibility? Or is there another solution that works in your mind?
Mr. Matson: Thanks for the question. I did talk to you about that scenario in the last testimony.
Resorting back to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other international laws and calls from international bodies, all the discrimination in the Indian Act has to be cleared up and meet Article 8 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a duty of the Government of Canada to correct everything that has happened, everything that is present and everything that will happen in the future so assimilation doesn’t occur. Once those things are met when it comes to Indigenous identity, there is community rehabilitation for the people who have suffered these discriminations and everything is cleared up and removed from the colonial reign of the Government of Canada, then with Articles 9 and 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we can have a community perspective about who is a status Indian, who is a member of the community and the individual constructs of each Indigenous band and nation. Section 10 of the Indian Act does speak to that, but section 10 was developed in 1985, and since 1985, we do know that there is a whole host of discrimination that has occurred and continues in our Canadian laws and practices.
As I said to Senator Audette, having these issues brought before a potential ombudsperson — I’m not too sure how long the time frame is to make that structure — and having the systemic issues addressed by an ombudsperson through an inquiry takes the burden off individuals. They have to wear a lot when they come forward with these legal issues that can take many decades to find a resolution. There is a very informative paper from the Yellowhead Institute by Professor Lee and Professor Horn-Miller from November of 2022 that provides other systemic issues in their paper.
It is something that we have to deal with. It’s not something that we can just sweep under the rug anymore. There are a whole host of other issues — section 6 and other provisions of the Indian Act — that need to be addressed by First Nations governments and a potential new ombudsperson because our Canadian Human Rights Commission can’t deal with certain subject matters anymore because of the jurisprudence from the Matson and Andrews cases. So even though there is no direct wording in our federal Canadian Human Rights Act saying that we cannot file a human rights complaint, it is what the courts had interpreted, which violates international law and guidance from the international treaty bodies and special procedures about the structures.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. Could I ask if the clerk could find that report? I would like to see it. Always good to have more reading.
The Chair: Absolutely.
I wonder, Mr. Matson, if I could get you to expand a bit more on a previous answer. Some literature suggests that Indigenous people and communities not only lack awareness about human rights laws in Canada, but face financial and other barriers to equitably accessing domestic and international institutions. How difficult was it for you to bring your case forward, and what should be done to address the lack of awareness and access?
Mr. Matson: So access to justice, it’s — there’s a — “awareness.” So our National Human Rights Institute, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is one that promotes human rights here in Canada, and they’ve done a good job. They were my voice. They provided me a voice. If it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t be here today talking to you, so they provided me that. I will give them that. They fought really hard to try to uphold Indigenous rights here in Canada.
The ombudsperson — I don’t know if there are any set structures about when a new ombudsperson could hypothetically go into legislation and be developed here in Canada, but the new human rights ombudsperson would be a terrific voice. And then also being able to speak to the United Nations, provide the treaty bodies and also the universal periodic review as a National Human Rights Institute.
But when it comes to the Senate’s role in this — like it had done with the Make It Stop! report, I’m looking forward to seeing the access to justice report that we’re talking about today.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My question is in two parts.
First of all, when you were going through the human rights process, were your complaints addressed in a trauma-informed, culturally congruent manner?
We also heard on April 19 about the backlog in the tribunal. I wonder if you experienced a long wait time to have your complaint addressed and, if so, how that might have affected you?
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question, senator.
I had filed a human rights complaint in 2008. There were no cultural perspectives then. It was a new structure. There was no trauma-informed information. It is very personal when some of these systemic issues are coming forward and dealing with family issues. There were several tears. There were lots of different things that had flooded in when dealing with these issues. They are very intimate when dealing with family structures and being discharged from one’s identity and community.
The other question you asked was, if you could just quickly recap, was the waitlist?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Yes. We heard about a backlog at the human rights tribunal. Did you experience that and how might that have affected you if you did?
Mr. Matson: Sure. It wasn’t very efficient. From 2008 to 2013, my complaint process sat with the commission for a short period of time, and then it went over to the tribunal in 2009. From 2009 to 2013, that was a process. There was definitely a backlog.
Some other witnesses had said that they were trying to improve their systems in the provinces and territories through mediation and friendly settlement. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal doesn’t have to worry about First Nations complaints, so there is no backlog of those, or about certain legal scenarios, because they are not allowed to be brought according to the Supreme Court of Canada and the lower courts of the tribunal.
There is efficiency when it comes to mediation and friendly settlements. Like I said to Senator Arnot, many of these systemic issues through mediation and friendly settlement will not be possible because the federal government will say there are too many people involved here. They say we can’t just provide you a remedy — and you and your family about certain scenarios — because then they have to give it to all the other Indigenous people who are affected by the same scenario.
Mediation won’t work for certain things, even though it is a good tool.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you, Mr. Matson, for being here. I am an interloper at this committee. I have not looked at the previous evidence.
In your research, preparation and dealings with the UN, can you tell me whether there are any other jurisdictions that they would point to — or you would point to — that have made progress in terms of appointments of people to deal with these Indigenous-related issues?
Mr. Matson: When it comes to domestically, there are no improvements. There were actually gains that were provided with the repeal of section 67, but the Department of Justice and Indigenous Services Canada have stripped away any progress that had been made by the repeal of section 67.
The other negative points are that, in the provinces and territories, there are pitfalls when it comes to section 91 jurisdiction under the Constitution Acts, how human rights structures in the provinces and territories will not take in First Nations complaints. They divert you to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Then when the Canadian Human Rights Commission says, “Oh, no, we can’t intake your complaint about certain subject matters because of jurisprudence in Matson and Andrews,” there is a complete loss of human rights protections in provinces and territories for a multitude of reasons.
That doesn’t answer your questions. I am pointing to other negative points in our systems here in Canada that need correction and reforms. My hope is that this ombudsperson does come alive and that the said structures are then in place for Indigenous peoples to have access to justice.
Senator Boniface: Thank you for that.
Is there jurisdiction in Australia or New Zealand — anywhere you can point to that you are aware of — that may have a similar position in place that has had some success in this regard? I don’t know the answer. I’m just asking if you do.
Mr. Matson: I have looked briefly at the UN manual that I had pointed to about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for National Human Rights Institutes. I briefly had read of some gains that were in there of other structures from other countries, but I don’t know of any offhand, to answer your question.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much. Thank you for your work on this. It is disheartening, to say the least.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Matson, I really liked your comment that systemic discrimination requires systemic solutions. I think the mandate given to the ombudsperson is going to be important.
I want to mention something that happened last night at the Human Rights Committee meeting where Black Canadians were bringing forward evidence to suggest that they have no confidence whatsoever in the Canadian Human Rights Commission and are actually calling for a deconstruction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Based on some of the things you have personally experienced in litigation, delay, mediated settlements — but not applying to a whole cohort of individuals — my question is, why not? I mention this because this is the first time I’ve heard a witness speak about a Black equity commissioner who would be an independent officer of Parliament.
The feature there is that this entity would report directly to the House of Commons and the Senate, the two houses of Parliament. You could, for instance, give a very robust mandate to an ombudsperson to do research, inquiries and education, and to report on the implementation of the Calls for Justice on a continuous basis.
The level of independence would be that of judicial independence, the highest level of independence, so not being fettered by government. It would also report to the legislative branch of government, not the executive branch of government, thereby holding the executive branch of government to account for the implementation of systemic solutions and the implementation of the Calls for Justice by the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Commission.
I put that forward to you for you to contemplate. We have talked about that in the past.
If you wanted to do any research on that and have any advice to our committee on this issue that we have because there is a lot of commonality between what I heard last night at the Human Rights Committee, the complaints, and what you’ve been saying not only today but for a long time — since 2008, actually.
I commend that model to you. If you have any advice about that, I think our committee could benefit from your thoughts on it because you’ve had real experiences on these very issues that have pushed the Black community in Canada in a direction that is quite clear — no confidence whatsoever in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I’m saying you can do that at any time, if you want to think about that for a while and look at that testimony by the witness. You will find it compelling.
I just put that forward — any thoughts you might have on it.
There is a chance to make a very strong mandate, one that is unique probably in the Western world, vis-à-vis Indigenous people’s relationship with government, which is the Crown in this case.
Mr. Matson: Thank you.
I don’t have too much to comment on that. As you know, the executive function of government, including the non-adherence to my international legal ruling in communication 682014, disregarded it and said it would not comply with it.
So you are right. I commend you for bringing this on the record because the executive function is not working here in Canada when it comes to wanting to hold systemic issues dear to their hearts because there is a whole host of people.
I know the Indigenous Bar Association had partnered with the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, or CABL, about these issues because of their mistrust with the actual inability for certain systemic issues to be addressed and the colonial reign to reign supreme with Indigenous peoples and people of African descent. I know that from literature I’ve read about the same things from the special procedures from the UN.
Senator Arnot: One of the witnesses last night was from CABL, so I am glad you mentioned that. Any further advice you can give us on those kinds of issues would be helpful. Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, that brings us to the end of our meeting. Once again, Mr. Matson, thank you very much for your testimony. We really appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)