THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 3, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 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’d 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 across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Senator Patti LaBoucane-Benson from Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Arnot: Senator David Arnot from Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator Greenwood: Senator Margo Greenwood from the best of Treaty 6, British Columbia.
Senator Sorensen: Senator Karen Sorensen from Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Martin: Senator Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good afternoon. [Innu-Aimun spoken] I’m Senator Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Boniface: Senator Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator D. Patterson: Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
The Chair: Thank you, 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 witnesses. From the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, we have Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief; and Elizabeth Blaney, Director of Policy Development. Thank you both for joining us today. National Chief St. Pierre will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, Senator Francis. I also thank all of the other senators sitting around the table. I’m very pleased that you continue to support the Aboriginal framework around the murdered and missing women, as well as the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
I’m an off-reserve status Indian. I’ve always lived off reserve. I visit my hometown every now and then, but, other than that, I’m off reserve. I live in rural communities.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, has been working for over 50 years with all of the federal governments that have been in place for the last 53 years. As you’re aware, the murdered and missing women are at the top of our list. We have a good team at the office that works on this, along with Ms. Blaney.
We need this to take place so that we can build the trust back with our women and girls that are in the urban centres — because a lot of them end up there. They come from their homes to the urban centres, and they have no place to go. We need to be able to fix that. It’s going to take support all the way around.
Today, over 80% of Aboriginal people live off reserve in urban and rural areas. Call for Justice 1.7 of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls for the establishment of a national Indigenous and human rights tribunal, and we need to move forward on that.
As most of you are aware, yesterday they cut a red ribbon on Parliament Hill, and they called for a state of emergency. It is a state of emergency for this simple reason: This has been going on for over 40 years. It’s just been in the last few years that the federal government has handed it over and said, “Let’s start working on it.” We have to work on it. We can’t hold back. We don’t need our sisters to be lying dead on the streets, and we don’t need to be finding them somewhere.
It hurts me because our women are our life. They look after all of us. They’re the caretakers of the water, and we need to push this through to ensure that everything works out right for the sake of the murdered and missing women. Thank you.
I’ll turn it over to Ms. Blaney. She can offer a few points if we have the time.
Elizabeth Blaney, Director of Policy Development, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, National Chief. Thank you, senators, for allowing me to speak this evening on this very important topic. I’m coming to you from the traditional Wolastoqey territory here on the East Coast.
A human rights ombudsperson must be responsive to the needs of all Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ folks. As the National Chief noted, most Indigenous people now live off reserve and in urban centres. They must have the trust that they are included.
To fulfill the obligations outlined in the 231 Calls for Justice, existing human rights protection mechanisms, at a minimum, need to have a greater understanding of the impact of colonialism on Indigenous peoples. Another year has passed since the release of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls — and survivors, families and communities are telling us that enough has still not been done. While we do not believe that the existing mechanisms can be modified to work, there is a role that they can play. Existing institutions and mechanisms can help raise the voices and shine a light on the human rights concerns of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, and can support Indigenous efforts to advocate for those rights.
The ombudsperson’s critical reviews, assessments and actions must be no less monumental than the colonial systems and actions that have worked to maintain colonial violence. This requires a mechanism that can instill trust; bring an Indigenous lens; engage the full participation of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people; centre Indigenous knowledge; and bring Indigenous expertise. The office should focus on urgently addressing complaints for full compliance with all human and Indigenous rights instruments and related laws — with a lens that understands how daily encounters with individuals, institutions, systems and structures can compromise security for women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
The office must be independent of governments, and have the authority to receive complaints from individuals, as well as communities and collectives, in relation to human rights violations. The office must also have the authority to conduct thorough and independent evaluations of government services in order to determine compliance with human rights laws. The office and accompanying tribunal must be given sufficient resources to fulfill their mandates, and it must be permanent. The office must have the authority to ensure that equitable access to basic rights, such as employment, housing, education, safety and health care, is recognized as a fundamental means of protecting Indigenous and human rights — and ensure that all programs are barrier-free and apply regardless of status or location.
The office must have the authority to pursue prioritization and resourcing of the measures required to eliminate social, economic, cultural and political marginalization when government budgets are being developed, as well as when activities and priorities are being determined. The office must have the resources to conduct research, collect data and measure change.
Lastly, there is a role for acknowledging and addressing jurisdictional and accountability issues. An Indigenous-specific human rights office must address matters related to Indigenous affairs within federal, provincial and overlapping areas of jurisdiction. The office must have the authority within and across all jurisdictions in order to eliminate jurisdictional gaps and neglect that result in the denial of services, or result in improperly regulated and delivered services.
We believe governments at all levels and their institutions must be held accountable. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you both for your opening remarks. We’ll now open the floor for senators to ask questions. I’ll start with my deputy chair, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, National Chief Elmer St. Pierre, for attending today, and thank you, Ms. Blaney, for providing us with this advice.
It’s clear to me that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples fully supports the need for a new mechanism, an independent Indigenous and human rights tribunal and an independent Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson. I just want to, perhaps, explore the reason why.
I think it’s fair to say that the existing mechanisms, whether it’s the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the provincial and territorial human rights commissions, have failed Indigenous people. There is some evidence that Indigenous people do not access the human rights complaints systems in the provinces and territories — or federally — because they don’t trust the systems, and they don’t feel welcome. They feel that it’s futile to enter into those systems, and they feel that they may not be believed, so their experience hasn’t been very good.
I’m wondering if that assessment is accurate. It points to the need for new mechanisms. Do you have any comments on the idea that the current system has simply failed Indigenous people?
Mr. St. Pierre: Senator, you’re exactly right. You hit the nail on the head: It’s the trust. You have to understand that a lot of our murdered and missing women, especially the survivors, don’t know what to do or where to go. It’s important to set in place an actual Aboriginal human rights — and, for myself, I would like to see some of these survivors be part of this committee because who else will know better about what’s happening within the families enduring the hardship?
The big thing is the trust. They’ve given up on the trust. All Aboriginal people have given up their trust in the federal government. They need a new place to go, especially in regard to the murdered and missing women.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Does Ms. Blaney have anything to add to that?
Ms. Blaney: I don’t have much more to add. I would just underscore that there is a lack of understanding in existing mechanisms regarding the impact of colonialism, and there’s a lack of Indigenous expertise in these existing mechanisms. Cultural competency is missing, as well as the failure to recognize intergenerational trauma and the impact that has on people’s lives. As you mentioned, senator, there’s a very low number of Indigenous people in those bodies, including a low number of Indigenous people who use those services. For those who do, the timeliness has been highly problematic, and they have left people further traumatized as a result.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much to both witnesses.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome and thank you for being here, National Chief and Ms. Blaney.
I met with your organization in the past weeks, and it was the first time that I learned — I’m a relatively new senator — about the population of Indigenous people that you serve. The congress has expressed concern about being excluded from certain federal efforts to engage Indigenous communities. I’m curious to know the following: Are you concerned that the voices of urban Indigenous people are not being heard in consultation with the government?
Mr. St. Pierre: I’m definitely concerned because that’s part of our provincial organizations; that’s part of their membership. If our people are not allowed to be heard, that’s discrimination; it’s racism. Why are there only so many organizations that have that voice, yet the CAP, which has been around for 50 years — and, like I said, we’ve dealt with every federal government that’s been in place for the last 50 years — suddenly doesn’t have a say for the last 7 or 8 years. I’m thankful to the Senate for inviting us so that we can voice our opinions. It would be nice to do that at the federal level as well. There is a big issue there.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you, National Chief, for being here. Your message has been very clear in terms of looking at something that’s independent, as my colleague asked about.
Either from you or from Ms. Blaney, I’d be interested in knowing whether you thought further in terms of what it could look like. How would it differ from the processes that have failed Indigenous people in the past? I wonder if perhaps Ms. Blaney could help in terms of how you would set it up and see it formed in a way that would better serve.
Ms. Blaney: Thank you for that question, senator. We’re also working closely with our federal government partners, and we’ll be meeting with the Ministerial Special Representative, or MSR, on Friday to discuss all of these matters as well.
One of the important components is the co-development of whatever structure that we put in place. There’s going to be all kinds of things put forward.
Some of the ones that are critical are as follows: a structure that’s trauma-informed; a structure that incorporates a safe approach, which includes the recognition of the unique rights and circumstances of Indigenous populations that our National Chief was talking to you about — in terms of non-status and urban folks — to ensure that they are not left behind; and, of course, independence.
We also know that the structure needs to have institutional power to look at discriminatory and exclusionary policies. For example, the right to mobility must be recognized within a process. That way, we can start to include the urban populations as well.
Those kinds of things need to be included. It needs to be Indigenous-informed, and there needs to be Indigenous expertise front and centre — an Indigenous lens applied to the review of policies and practices. Those kinds of things would be a little different than what we have currently in existing mechanisms.
Once we bring in Indigenous people at the centre to lead — of course, non-Indigenous people can also be a part of this, but there has to be cultural competency training included in order for that inclusion to be beneficial to Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people who come forward.
As well, the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the Calls for Justice also identified that there needs to be a process to recognize collective grievances. The existing mechanisms at the moment are very individually organized. There needs to be a place for a collective voice to come through — that would be very Indigenous-specific.
As well, there must be traditional knowledge and traditional ways of doing things, like matriarchal perspectives, as well as recognition of Indigenous knowledge keepers and the role that they play. There are a whole host of possibilities with an Indigenous lens that could be incorporated into what a structure might look like. I’m very much looking forward to that co-development process.
The Chair: I’m going to jump in with a question for either of you. In 2021, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples filed a complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Please describe your complaint and any results to date. Why has the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples filed a complaint against the Government of Canada with an international body?
Ms. Blaney: That is kind of a political question that I need to leave with the executive to respond to.
The Chair: Perhaps you can provide it to us in writing; that would be sufficient.
Ms. Blaney: Okay.
James Devoe, Chief Executive Officer, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Since the Daniels decision came out in 2016, we have been up against a wall with this Liberal government. We have been up against expressed situations where we’re included or not included — sometimes we’re included, and sometimes we’re not.
Our board of directors has made the decision to file the human rights complaint. The complaint is still in Geneva. We understand that it’s progressing, which is a very good sign. The lawyers working for us have said the fact that it’s still in the system and still under review is a good sign. One of the things that we were concerned about was it wouldn’t be heard and it would be taken away.
I’m very conscious not to delve too much into this because it is the situation. I don’t want to be disclosing too much. I wasn’t prepared for this question; my apologies. I’m not sure that there’s more to say about it.
Senator Martin: Nice to see you again, National Chief. My question is for Ms. Blaney. This is in relation to the question that Senator Boniface asked you regarding what the structure should look like. You gave your list of very important suggestions, or elements, of what should happen in creating an Indigenous structure for human rights issues and cases. I was listening carefully, but I didn’t hear anything that specifically addressed what you said in your opening remarks about overlapping jurisdictions and gaps in services, and that this can lead to a denial of services. Within this structure, what do you envision being in place to prevent these jurisdictional issues?
Ms. Blaney: I would like to back up one moment: Minister Marc Miller attended the first round table of Indigenous organizations to talk about missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. He made the remark that he wasn’t aware that the majority of the Calls for Justice — I think he said it was 140 or 141, or something like that — were cross-jurisdictional issues. He was quite surprised about that.
That was an important notice of his, and an important remark to make to all of us because those of us, particularly in the urban and non-status realm, live daily the reality of jurisdictional wrangling. Who is responsible for programs and services for urban, off-reserve Indigenous peoples?
For example, in many jurisdictions across this country — in urban centres — our government does not know how many Indigenous children are in the child welfare system. This has direct repercussions on the future lives of those children. It has been connected to missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Who is responsible? In conversations that I’ve had with the federal government, accountability is a huge issue; they take that very seriously. The problem is when it goes down to the provincial level. I’m not blaming the provinces by any means, but I am saying that no one is paying attention to what happens to those children there. Who is responsible?
The federal government has their family and services act, and the provinces have their acts, but the children are not even noticed in the system. There is definitely a problem: We don’t know what’s happening to them. That’s one example where we need that jurisdictional accountability.
An ombudsperson office would certainly help us to manœuvre that, and to challenge that entrenched systemic racism in services and systems, including child welfare. That needs to be challenged. Does that help answer your question?
Senator Martin: It does answer my question, in part, as a good example of where these jurisdictional challenges take place, or where the wrangling takes place. I’m trying to understand how we can bridge the gaps with the jurisdictional wrangling. I’m still kind of stuck on how we can do it well.
Ms. Blaney: That’s a very good question. There’s a solid rationale for why we need to have an Indigenous human rights ombudsperson’s office: to help all Canadians understand where the problems are, as well as understand the impacts that current processes have on the lives of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. I believe one of their huge roles will be that education piece.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Blaney. I was very touched, moved and impressed by how you spoke about the way this organization, or that space, should look, as well as who we should involve. Also, we had an honest conversation together. In my territory, it is clear that a big debate needs to happen about who represents whom and who does what for whom.
I know that in many places you walk beside life and you save life. I’m sure that they do that at the Native Friendship Centre of Montreal or at the Inuit urban organization in Montreal. There is an ecosystem across Canada that works and represents Indigenous people, as well as the interests of Indigenous people. I want to ensure that we understand that where I come from, there’s my chief, but I also want to work with everyone.
What you do will be important in how we bring the Indigenous people, regardless of the nation — whether it’s Métis or Inuit — who will be members of your organization, and who could come if we push this study further. It’s a hope to have an ombudsperson’s office — and not just an organization — that will one day be attached to legislation. There is a legal relationship with the federal government where we can have voices that would use and benefit this ombudsperson’s office and this tribunal. For me, grassroots people are the powerful voice. We try to represent their interests, but sometimes it’s good to have a conversation.
Would you have an event, or something else, with us — where we have family members from your organization — that would help us continue this discussion and reflection on how we should collectively build this organization and tribunal?
Mr. St. Pierre: I’m sure that we could do that. We have a board of directors meeting coming up shortly. I’ll make sure that’s on one of our agendas. We’ll talk to each one of the provincial presidents or chiefs, and see whether we can do that — but I’m sure that we can do that. You know, it’s amazing how you can work with Zoom. I don’t think there would be a problem with having a meeting with Newfoundland and Labrador or British Columbia — it could be five or six members, or whatever the case may be — and the full Senate or individuals.
Ms. Blaney: Thank you, senator, for that invitation. In regard to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, I met you there — I was really privileged to have met you there — and participated in the inquiry.
That inquiry brought all of us together. The conversation was very difficult and traumatizing for many of us, but it was an opportunity for all of us to come together around this. I think that can and will continue. We are dedicated to that. I look forward to those opportunities.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator D. Patterson: I understand that we’re studying the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and that we have heard of the inaccessibility of the current institutions to Indigenous people — as well as their lack of representation in the existing, current processes — and that there isn’t much take-up. However, I can’t help but think about the long-standing issue of child welfare and Jordan’s Principle, and the significant award that was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission over some objections, delays and attempts to avoid on the part of the impacted governments.
Frankly, on the face of it, some might say that this looked like, at least, one response to a very serious issue involving Indigenous children. I’m wondering about your perspective on that decision, and how that might have impacted your members and their families — and whether there is anything we can learn from that experience involving what seems to be a significant $40 billion award.
I hope I’m making myself clear. I heard Ms. Blaney talk about the weaknesses of the current processes. There are some who might point out that this was a significant award that recently impacted Indigenous peoples. I don’t know whether you think that was a positive impact on your members or not, but I would be grateful if you have any comments. Without defending the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did something go right here perhaps?
I know there are lots of criticisms, but was that an exception? Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Blaney: Over the last few years, there have been a number of opportunities for redress and recognition of wrongs against Indigenous peoples in this country. The child welfare issue was one of those moments. All of those have positive effects because they tell people that Canada does recognize that a wrong was committed. However, what we’re seeing here, too, is that there is lots of room for improvement. It isn’t enough because it is still not going to address future issues of what happens in child welfare right now — what is happening to children in care right at this very moment.
That’s where that is. But all of those moments have been positive in the recognition of what has happened in the past. We need to do more to move our country forward and our lives forward. Does that answer your question, senator?
Senator D. Patterson: Yes, thank you. I think you might be saying that there have been some good moments, and maybe that’s in spite of the barriers and obstacles. I do suspect that if it had not been for strong, dogged, determined people — like Cindy Blackstock — willing to put years and years of their life into this, we might not have had the result that we have been talking about.
Would you say that these positive effects are too rare, and exist despite the barriers that you have talked about in your presentation tonight?
Ms. Blaney: Certainly, but I’m not here to speak about how Canada continues to perpetuate systemic racism and anti-Indigenous racism in particular.
Like you just said, the work of Cindy Blackstock and the work of the folks at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are the Indigenous folks that we are talking about. It’s their work and their efforts that are moving reconciliation forward. The leadership is there, and the leadership is ready to do more. I think a human rights ombudsperson is a step in the right direction.
Senator D. Patterson: I think of some of the work that this committee has done over the years, including our studies of housing both on reserve and off reserve, where the committee pointed out crises across the country that were significant barriers to progress toward equality and equality of opportunity for Indigenous people. We have written strong reports calling for government action and dramatizing the crisis. The committee travelled widely and exposed really horrific conditions. There were other studies related to drinking water, firefighting and many other privileges and rights that people in urban Canada — non-Indigenous people — take for granted.
I’m thinking that all of this good work — where we make recommendations as a committee, and the government responds or doesn’t respond in a meaningful way — begs for alternative mechanisms to protect the human rights that are taken for granted by non-Indigenous people. Is that what you’re saying here — that the present institutions, despite some faltering progress here and there, are not delivering fairness with respect to human rights, and that we need something more? Is that the essential message that you’re giving us tonight?
Ms. Blaney: Yes, I just came back from the national Social Housing and Human Rights Conference in Winnipeg. We were talking about housing as a human right, and the deplorable situation of urban Indigenous populations when it comes to housing. There is a lot of work to be done, and poverty is a huge issue. Like I said in my opening remarks, there is a role that existing institutions can play to support Indigenous human rights efforts, to raise Indigenous human rights violations and to shine a light on the work that needs to be done, as well as the work that is being done. There is a role there to play, and to continue that good work and those good initiatives that were taken.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you. If I may, I wonder if you have any thoughts about the role and the place of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in advancing human rights. I haven’t heard you say anything about that tonight. It contains quite a significant — I won’t say exhaustive — enumeration of human rights that should be recognized, and it was adopted by Canada in legislation as being a framework for reform of all of our laws.
Does the UNDRIP — and the legislation that enshrined it in Canadian law — provide us with any assistance in dealing with these issues, or should we be focusing on the specific Calls to Action for an Indigenous human rights commission and an ombudsperson, rather than putting our faith in the UNDRIP process? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Mr. St. Pierre: Under the UNDRIP, there are big problems with Canada. Yes, they accepted it. But there are things in there, like education, housing and Aboriginal people — who do they want to belong to? They had the right to belong to any organization, and yet the federal government doesn’t recognize that. They probably recognize it, but they just don’t do anything about it.
Another prime example is the Daniels case. The Supreme Court of Canada — all of the judges — unanimously voted in favour. This is what we say around the office: “We won, but who listened? Who is listening? Nobody.” The federal government hasn’t listened — the best that we received out of the Daniels case was a political accord agreement. We have been working on that for the last six years; nothing has really come out of that either.
The government can sit back and say, “Yes, we adopted the UNDRIP,” but did they do it because they had to, as it was there from the UN and all of the people? Is that the reason why they adopted it? It’s hard to say. But I do know that there are a few things under the UNDRIP that the government is not abiding by.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to, again, thank National Chief St. Pierre and Ms. Blaney for joining us today.
For our second panel, we have Dalee Sambo Dorough, Senior Scholar and Special Adviser on Arctic Indigenous Peoples at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Dorough will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I now invite Dr. Dorough to present her opening remarks.
Dalee Sambo Dorough, Senior Scholar and Special Adviser on Arctic Indigenous Peoples, University of Alaska Anchorage, as an individual: Thank you very much for this opportunity to share some remarks on the very specific questions that were sent to me for purposes of this hearing. That’s what I will focus on specifically and sequentially as they appeared in the email.
In relation to question 1, my response is “no.” On May 16, 2018, I testified to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls at its Quebec City hearing. Among other recommendations, I raised the need for recourse, redress, healing and rehabilitation in collaboration with Inuit, and consistent with the values, customs, practices and institutions of Inuit. To my knowledge, no existing human rights protection mechanism in Canada is based on our distinct cultural context.
I also recommended that active measures to end the discriminatory nature of legal systems — at every stage and at every level — are needed. To date, I don’t believe that this has been accomplished, nor do I believe that existing mechanisms can be adequately adjusted to fulfill the Indigenous-specific human rights obligations held by the Government of Canada.
There is the need for a tribunal to provide recourse and remedies to Indigenous peoples whose individual or collective rights have been violated, and to enforce implementation of those rights by the federal government. We can’t leave this hearing and the overall discussion about the UNDRIP with the notion that a mechanism or tribunal will only focus on the promotion of Indigenous human rights. It must be a thoroughgoing human rights recourse mechanism.
Moving on, allow me to respond to both the main element of question 2, as well as the additional question set for Indigenous peoples.
Yes, I strongly believe that a new Indigenous-specific human rights mechanism or tribunal is necessary to guarantee our distinct individual and collective human rights. An autonomous independent body is needed, along with a corresponding mandate and jurisdiction, and it must be consistent with the objectives of the UNDRIP.
At the international level, each human rights instrument has a corresponding treaty body; for example, there is the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Like women and children, the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and political rights of Indigenous peoples are discrete. Overall, the subject matter of Indigenous peoples, at both the national and international scale, is discrete, meaning that these are matters that are separate or distinct.
Historically, the objective of achieving justice — upholding, recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples — has been addressed by the Government of Canada as a field of law unique from that of other fields of law. Unfortunately, and as affirmed in the preamble of the UNDRIP, such laws and policies have resulted in historic injustices.
However, Canada is now moving in a more progressive fashion. Though the UNDRIP does not create any new rights, treatment of Indigenous-specific human rights and related subject matter must be done in a way that is fully and effectively responsive to the historical denial of equality, self-determination and related human rights.
Most human rights norms maintain an individual human rights orientation, as was recently discussed. This human rights orientation based on individuals is non-responsive to the collective dimension of Indigenous peoples and our specific contextualized circumstances and characteristics. The requirement to exhaust domestic or other remedies also creates a significant barrier for Indigenous peoples and our access to justice.
The UNDRIP is clearly the framework for the mechanism, yet it is also important to consider the mutually reinforcing and complementary standards affirmed in both the International Labour Organization, or ILO, Convention No. 169 and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which also includes Canada.
The UN Paris Principles provide crucial criteria for review and monitoring of compliance — by the government and others — of Indigenous peoples’ human rights standards. There is a need to supplement this criterion by the distinct cultural context of Indigenous peoples, and a need to go well beyond the annual reporting of national human rights conditions.
As a recourse and redress mechanism, such a tribunal should have the power to adjudicate complaints and appeals of government and other actions brought by Indigenous peoples.
To be responsive to the diversity of knowledge systems, the mechanism should also be informed by and be amenable to Indigenous peoples’ legal traditions as a source of law. Indigenous peoples should be guaranteed a primary role in the comprehensive steps toward the actual creation of the tribunal, as well as its execution and implementation of judgments, administrative acts and other decisions.
Regarding question 2(b), the mechanism could effectively become instructive and provide educational value as an institution, producing knowledge about the distinct contours of Indigenous human rights, thereby increasing the understanding of civil society across Canada about the rights of Indigenous peoples.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, at the national level and those of the provincial and territorial governments, could potentially consider a policy akin to that of the tribal and state courts in the United States. Specifically, in the U.S., full faith and credit for protection orders mean that when a protection order issued by any state, Indian tribe or territory is violated in any other jurisdiction, it must be enforced as if the order had been issued in that jurisdiction concerned. In this way, the tribunal or mechanism could more easily advance its work on the objectives of the UNDRIP.
Regarding question 2, the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act requires unprecedented cooperation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples. Therefore, the Indigenous-specific human rights mechanism or tribunal, as a robust recourse mechanism, will need to be calibrated to progress the rights affirmed in the UNDRIP, potentially making the overlapping areas of jurisdiction moot.
In relation to question 2(d), allow me to draw your attention to the UNDRIP Article 44 which affirms that “All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous individuals” and the UNDRIP Article 22 which affirms “. . . that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.”
For Indigenous peoples, we have articulated that our communities must be safe havens — a place for all. It is clear that some have felt excluded or unwelcome in our communities, where they most want to belong. Within the context of a recourse mechanism, the same standard of respect, recognition and tolerance must be included.
I hope that, at least, these brief remarks have responded to the questions that have been sent. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Dorough. Now I will open the floor for senators to ask questions, starting with my deputy chair, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today, Dr. Dorough. I really appreciate your comments.
I have a couple of questions. If you look at Western concepts of human rights and principles, such as equality or justice, you’re advocating, or you have in the past, for incorporating Indigenous knowledge and applying it to these issues. There’s a tremendous opportunity that is likely to arise: to create an Indigenous human rights mechanism, which is being envisioned by the work that we’re doing here.
My question to you is this: I’ve often said — because I’ve met hundreds of elders during the course of my work in other places — that Indigenous people look at the world in a different way than non-Indigenous people, and that non-Indigenous people have a lot to learn from the way that Indigenous people look at the world.
In that context of Western concepts of human rights, you’re advocating that the Indigenous knowledge, or Indigenous ways of knowing, be applied and incorporated into these new processes that will be articulated. Can you explain to me and my colleagues here how you see this Indigenous knowledge being applied? Could you provide an example so that I could understand what you mean by that, as well as your view on the value of that application in this new model that’s hopefully forthcoming?
Ms. Dorough: Thank you for the question. First, allow me to say that you use the term “incorporating.” The respect for and recognition of Indigenous knowledge goes, as you know, far beyond incorporating certain stories, legends, et cetera. But, moreover, the recognition of —
Senator Arnot: Place, right? It is the foundational thesis of a new process.
Ms. Dorough: I’m just commenting on the use of the term. What I want to say is that respect for and recognition of Indigenous knowledge as a whole knowledge system, along with the corresponding rights and safeguards, are sourced in the right of self-determination as far as the significance and importance of Indigenous knowledge.
My reference to knowledge in the context of a mechanism or a tribunal refers to the legal traditions of Indigenous peoples and their particular values, customs, practices and traditions.
Much of this can be found in the groundbreaking work of Val Napoleon and John Borrows at the University of Victoria, as well as other Indigenous scholars across Canada who are working to reveal the importance of their legal traditions.
The other dynamic that is important is as follows: The whole history of the making of the UNDRIP, if you will, was informed by such knowledge, as well as the stories, the interventions and the contributions of Indigenous peoples directly. In this way, a mechanism or a tribunal is responsive to ensuring the exercise and enjoyment of the rights affirmed by the UNDRIP — and ensuring that they are, I suppose, fully understood by not only Indigenous peoples, but also by society at large.
My reference to knowledge and knowledge systems in this particular context rests on both the substance of that knowledge and the important safeguards and procedural aspects to safeguard such knowledge.
I hope that I’ve responded to your question.
Senator Arnot: Yes, that’s fine. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to Dr. Dorough. Wow. There was a lot in your testimony to us tonight. It’s going to be extremely helpful in the work that we’re doing. Thank you so much.
I believe that you recently co-authored a piece published in the Oxford Commentaries on International Law which discusses the World Heritage Convention on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We know that you have this incredible history of direct involvement in the discussion, the debate and the negotiation of the UNDRIP.
As a former expert member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, could you tell us — if there are some — what lessons we can learn? I’m sure that you’ve shared some of that, but are there some specific lessons that Canada could learn from other countries that have successfully implemented reforms of their own human rights frameworks in order to better protect and respond to the rights of their Indigenous peoples? Are there some examples that you could point to for us?
Ms. Dorough: Yes. First, allow me to apologize to the previous senator for not offering an example. I had one in the centre of my brain, and then it went out while I was responding to the key question of Indigenous knowledge. He asked for an example of the importance of Indigenous knowledge as a foundation to some of these measures. I think that this is presently the challenge at the international level: the implementation gap that faces Indigenous peoples across the globe, including Canada.
I’m repeating myself because I’ve said this at a number of international fora: Presently, the Government of Canada is the only democratic government on earth substantively and concretely addressing the issue of implementation. The adoption of the national law is extraordinary. In other countries far from us, we have governments actively diminishing the rights of Indigenous peoples, or actively perpetuating gross human violations against Indigenous peoples.
At the international level, there are a few developments that have emerged where national human rights institutions have made adjustments in order to be responsive to the rights affirmed in the UNDRIP. Some of them are echoing practices and behaviour of the international human rights treaty bodies, which have embraced and utilized the UNDRIP as a framework for understanding and interpreting the rights of Indigenous peoples. This isn’t just within the United Nations, but also inclusive of the Organization of American States, or OAS, as well as their Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and their Inter‑American Court of Human Rights.
I can probably list only about six governments that have taken concrete steps to be responsive because they’ve been asked, and they agreed to within the UN, to develop national action plans in order to be responsive to implementing the UNDRIP. If we take the 6 or so out of the 193 members — we can all do the math, right?
All this to say that the examples are few and far between. The comprehensive nature by which the Government of Canada has chosen to address this particular issue is unprecedented.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: Dr. Dorough, I’m wondering if you could expand on a previous answer that you provided. As we continue our study into the effectiveness of human rights institutions, are there other experts that we should hear from other than Val Napoleon and those working on the revitalization of Indigenous legal traditions?
Ms. Dorough: Yes, I think that there’s a growing pool of individuals doing this kind of work, particularly at the international level. I think about the outreach to Australian Aboriginal people — in particular, Dr. Megan Davis at the University of New South Wales in Sydney is one individual. We’re also beginning to see these dynamics emerge in various other international fora, like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Some of the important dynamics of Indigenous knowledge are emerging within very distinct international venues. It would take me a little bit of time to put on my thinking cap and provide you with a more extensive list, but they exist. They’re out there, and it’s a growing pool.
The Chair: If you can think of any, you can send them to our clerk. It would be very helpful to us.
Ms. Dorough: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you to Dr. Dorough for her very thoughtful presentation. As Senator Coyle said, there’s a lot to think about and unpack.
I’d like to take Senator Arnot’s question a little bit further, or ask it in a different way. You talked about the distinct contours of Indigenous human rights that might arise if Indigenous knowledge is, indeed, the foundation of building this new human rights mechanism. I take your point that there are very few examples, so those contours are yet to emerge. Can you anticipate what those distinct contours might look like? What would this tribunal look like if it were truly grounded in, let’s say, the Cree legal tradition?
Ms. Dorough: I can’t speak to the Cree specifically, but I think that some of the responses that Ms. Blaney provided earlier in the first panel are important to recognize.
I also want to return to the opening of all of this — specifically, if we didn’t have to rely upon the judiciary, for example, and the problems created by common law. This notion is shared by nearly every Commonwealth country: Their perspectives and their understanding of law, and how it should function in society, is the only understanding. The previous senator was talking about this distinct world view — a distinct world perspective — and the holistic nature of Indigenous peoples and their understanding of the interrelated, interconnected, indivisible natural world around us, as well as our place within this natural world. These are elements that are far from what other societies have expressed and what other peoples have expressed. I think that there’s a lot going on in terms of how a mechanism or tribunal can actually be responsive to Indigenous peoples.
One quick example is how the UNDRIP affirms this profound relationship that Indigenous peoples have to their lands, territories and resources, as well as their understanding and their place within such lands, and their interaction with the natural world. We could teach a whole semester course on the question that you posed. I don’t know that I’ve answered it, but I’m wondering if I’m at liberty to respond to both your question and the previous senator’s question with an example.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Ms. Dorough: Thank you. The first thing that came to my mind when the question was first posed was the experience of the traditional customs of Yup’ik people in southwestern Alaska, particularly in Bethel. They were really struggling with the retention of Yup’ik children and looking after the best interest of the child according to the Indian Child Welfare Act. They went back and they identified, first and foremost, their own Yup’ik values and customs, as well as their traditional way of adoption — of course, they didn’t call it this. Utilizing both Yup’ik knowledge — their knowledge — and the State of Alaska’s laws and policies on child welfare, and federal law and policy on Indian child welfare, as well as international human rights standards affirmed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, they pooled all of this together and put in place their own tribal code that was inclusive of their perspectives. That was then translated into their own language, and that’s what their court uses to ensure child welfare. I think that example illustrates not only respecting and recognizing your own knowledge, customs and practices, but it also acknowledges that there are standards that have been developed by others that are important to safeguarding the welfare of Yup’ik children. That’s the example that I omitted in response to the first question to me. I hope that illustrates a response to your question. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator D. Patterson: It’s great to see you again, Dr. Dorough. You are a respected human rights expert, so I know that you can help me with a question that is on my mind: the position paper from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, regarding an Indigenous human rights commission. They have recommended that the commission should be established consistent with the Paris Principles. I am wondering if you can tell us how the Paris Principles might apply to our study and reinforce some of the very valuable recommendations that you have given to us tonight.
Ms. Dorough: Thank you. The work that ITK has done is such an important contribution to this larger discussion. My reference to the Paris Principles earlier was to point out that, too often, we see national human rights institutions — and it’s the reason why I mentioned it — conduct this national report on the condition of human rights within their particular mandate.
The criteria that have been established through the Paris Principles are matters like ensuring autonomy and independence, and ensuring that its vision, its mandate and its objectives are to promote and protect human rights, as well as their ability to review and investigate human rights violations in a manner that sometimes requires confidentiality — by this, I’m referring to the practices of the treaty bodies when complaints are made of a sensitive nature in order to protect and safeguard the victim of human rights violations.
I’m forgetting all of them; there are about six of them. In this particular case, as far as the tribunal is concerned, I suggest the Paris Principles, in looking at them, in order to ensure alignment with human rights institutions, but also, even more significantly, in applying the Indigenous human rights lens, which the United Nations has recognized was originally missing in their particular human rights regime. I would submit that likewise for Canada, as well as for states across the globe, this particular Indigenous human rights lens is also missing; hence, there’s the need for a specific mechanism responsive to Indigenous peoples.
It’s very easy to look up the Paris Principles, and I suggest that they be studied for the purposes of moving forward with this tribunal, mechanism or body.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you. If I may, I want to understand a little more regarding how you have recommended that, like other international human rights bodies, there is a corresponding link to a treaty. In Canada’s case, it certainly should be the UNDRIP.
I wonder if you could please elaborate a little bit on how this happens in other jurisdictions, and how we can learn from that in our study with respect to the UNDRIP.
Ms. Dorough: In part, I answered an element of the question. There are very few places to point to as far as national human rights institutions, or our governments, effectively putting in place a comprehensive mechanism to ensure the protection and promotion of the distinct rights of Indigenous peoples.
As I said earlier, there are some examples that do exist. In fact, the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is working to conclude a study; I just went through, edited and reviewed the document. From my perspective, this would be a useful study for the purposes of the present set of questions related to the declaration and the mechanism.
I should note that Sheryl Lightfoot at the University of British Columbia is one of the members of the expert mechanism. In late 2022, she hosted a gathering in Vancouver specifically to look at this question. That study will provide, at least, some of the answers to questions that have been set to me in this particular hearing.
The few things that I can think of off the top of my head are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner in Australia, and their particular work in favour of Aboriginal people in Australia as a body more specifically. The use of the term “ombudsman” isn’t quite accurate for the social justice commissioner’s role, but it is one example where a key mandate is to look specifically at the human rights conditions of Indigenous peoples — and not solely the matter of racism and racial discrimination in that context.
They have been plagued by lack of funding and a whole host of other things, which is another matter that is important for this discussion: the very serious need for financial resources to undertake the creation of a mechanism or a tribunal.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you very much.
Senator Martin: Thank you so much for your testimony. I concur with my colleagues that there is so much to unpack, and you’re bringing to us lots of really important insights.
I want to refer to the testimony in the previous panel regarding accountability being a huge issue, especially with jurisdictional overlap and wrangling. In your testimony, the words jumped out at me when you said, “making the overlapping areas of jurisdiction moot.”
Could you further explain for me — and I may have missed the first part — how we can do that in order to overcome the jurisdictional wrangling that often takes place?
Ms. Dorough: In the context of good governance, when we talk about authority and jurisdiction, including the Government of Canada as well as the political subdivisions of the provinces and the territories, the aim is for every political institution to protect and promote human rights; they are universal. The Government of Canada — in contrast to the United States — and its impressive ratification or accession to international human rights instruments would suggest that there is a need for everyone at every level to protect and promote human rights.
In regard to a human rights institution specifically addressing Indigenous human rights, I was suggesting that they can play an important role in terms of increasing understanding — to repeat myself — about the contours of Indigenous human rights, as well as where there are Indigenous affairs that are within the realm of, for example, the Northwest Territories as a government and in their relations with Inuit and other First Nations in their, quote, unquote, jurisdiction; there are opportunities for dialogue and collaboration but also, I think, even more importantly, understanding about Inuit rights or the rights of First Nations. This dynamic would help ensure that if there are issues of overlapping jurisdiction, the rights, interests, concerns and aspirations of Indigenous peoples will be better understood by the jurisdictions concerned.
I think that the opportunities for a mechanism, or an institution, to produce knowledge about these matters are extraordinary; there is a lot there. As far as authority and jurisdiction, if we take — I am trying to think of something concrete and real on the present radar of Canada — a conflict over a particular resource, or an approach to ensuring that research funding reaches Indigenous peoples, and if contentious issues arise and if a complaint arises, then, in effect, every actor will have a better understanding of, most importantly and primarily, the Indigenous interests and rights in the particular issue.
We could probably spin out all kinds of scenarios where there is competing jurisdiction. They arise practically every day here in Alaska — one of them being hunting, fishing and harvesting rights. The federal government has a standard, and the State of Alaska has a standard — the two conflict with each other. Our state constitution says one thing; the federal government has affirmed another thing in our land claim.
I would probably suggest that as a contentious example where many of the issues could be resolved in terms of the question of jurisdiction but also, even more significantly, the rights as they are affirmed in the UNDRIP as an important international human rights instrument that has been accepted and, in my view, that universal consensus has emerged around.
I am trying to think of other concrete examples to respond to the specific question of jurisdiction, but there are so many of them.
Senator Martin: Thank you. Those were good examples that you already cited.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you, first of all, for your presentation; as has already been said, there was certainly a lot in it.
As I was listening to you, so many things were passing through my mind, particularly when we talk about Indigenous knowledge and our own systems of knowledge — I was thinking about how our systems of knowledge are beginning to be articulated in multiple disciplines. Certainly, I have heard it in the world of children: how we care for and raise our children. I certainly have heard it in that world and, I think, across other disciplines.
As I was thinking about this, I thought about the practical realities of how we can do this. We have a tribunal structure, but it sits within a much larger structure as well. I listened to you in thinking about an Indigenous-specific tribunal — it would be great if we had our own courts, and we could implement our knowledge in the way that we would in our communities, if we had those freedoms. And then we have an interface with a colonial system, or it could be that we don’t have any of that.
I was thinking that our systems of knowledge are going to interface with other systems of knowledge and other structures. How would we enforce the actions in order to ensure change? I was thinking, “How would all of that work?” We’re not in our communities where we have our own systems, but we’re really in an interface system — our place — where we have a whole lot of other things happening, and we are interfacing with that.
If we want to enforce some of the findings that we might discover in an Indigenous-specific tribunal, what would we need to do to enforce that? We could find things, but how do we enforce the change that we want to see?
Ms. Dorough: Yes, similar to the work done on Indigenous knowledge and the co-production of knowledge, you’re talking about this interface and the relationships that swirl around us.
I think that substantively there has to be an understanding and agreement about the substance. It appears that you — “you” meaning those in Canada and the government itself — have recognized the substance which is, in my estimation, the UNDRIP.
I made mention of the ILO Convention No. 169 and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which are important because the standards are articulated differently in each of those instruments. An agreement about the substance — when it comes to the exercise and enjoyment of the rights — is by Indigenous peoples. This is where some of the procedural aspects will come into play. I think that the procedural aspects of a mechanism or tribunal can be developed in such a way that it honours both the substance and the procedural aspects.
I think about this in relation to, for example, our engagement as Indigenous peoples in venues like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — where we have advanced so that states need to understand the content of our rights, and how they are understood and interpreted. We also need the procedural aspects — and, in this case, it’s a mechanism — that clearly establish what the mandate is, as well as the jurisdiction, power, authority and composition of the institution.
To summarize, I think that a clear understanding and clarity around both the substance and procedural aspects will ensure that — Ms. Blaney used the term “co-development” — this is co‑produced. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a willingness on the part of Inuit, First Nations and Métis to extend a hand regarding how to do this in terms of a mechanism or tribunal.
Obviously, first and foremost, the substance and understanding the content of the rights that have been affirmed are imperative. Co-producing, or co-developing, the procedural aspects will result in a favourable mechanism. It may take time for it to develop, but, in my estimation, it is an important progressive development of society, the law and human rights — one that Canada should be proud of.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: The reason I’m going to speak French is that this is your area of expertise, which I am not familiar with in everyday life. There are more complex terms and I don’t know the names of the various conventions in English, but I know that Canada has signed seven major international human rights instruments.
For years, Indigenous women in Canada have used every available platform to denounce discrimination and racism. It therefore becomes an individual right. There is a conflict between the Indigenous leadership, because we are asserting our individual rights while our leaders only talk about collective rights. We have contributed greatly to Canada as Indigenous women.
We also know that the declarations and agreements were not drafted in cooperation with Indigenous people. Back then, we may not have understood the impact of colonialism, the effects of residential schools, and so on, impacts that we talk about today. That is one of the good reasons to have a UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Women had to fight. I was at the discussions in Chile to make sure the declaration contained articles referring as much to Indigenous women as to men.
We are having a domestic debate, and in a great country at that. My colleagues are asking some really important and intelligent questions because they already have a lot knowledge.
How can we do this if, as I saw in the course of the national inquiry, the provinces won’t come on board? Under this approach, we can’t go any further. But as far as I am concerned, we can, and if a province withdraws, that is its right. We shouldn’t penalize others.
There are issues of responsibility, participation and jurisdiction; as you know, in Canada there are provinces and territories. How do we balance collective and individual rights, international instruments and our Indigenous rights? If a specific territory or province does not want to be part of this, we should not reject the bill, we should continue to push it and move it forward.
I would be afraid that some elected officials from across Canada would tell us that, because such and such a province is not present, we outright reject the bill. Do you think that this is a viable project if important partners, either provinces or territories, are missing?
When a federal decision affects Indigenous people, it is often rejected or brought to the Court of Appeal, for example, because a government, like the one in Quebec, does not agree. That’s a specific example.
[English]
Ms. Dorough: To return to the response that I offered in terms of the question about jurisdictions and entanglement of jurisdiction, you’re being even more specific about objection to the recognition of and the respect for the human rights of Indigenous peoples.
To be honest with you, the question is kind of troubling. If you think about the efforts that have been made by Indigenous peoples, I think it’s common knowledge to everyone present that the UNDRIP was the lengthiest negotiation of a human rights instrument that the United Nations has ever engaged in. Part of it relates to the substance, or essence, of your question, and that is the opposition to the distinct status, role and rights of Indigenous peoples — never mind the level of harrowing conditions in relation to missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
If a province or territory objects, I think that society as a whole, as well as the international community, should respond. It would be stunning if, in fact, something like this arose in the context of Indigenous human rights.
I think back to the Charlottetown Accord. If I understand this correctly, as an outside observer, Canadians supported the recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples. The language found in section 35 of the Constitution Act is responsive to this particular call.
For others to compel a province or a territory in the area of either a very specific or a broad matter — related to respecting and recognizing the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples — they are simply perpetuating the historic injustices that have been identified through the original human rights standards-setting exercise that took place at the United Nations in terms of how you change the behaviour of individuals, politicians and administrations through and through. Hopefully, the result is not just to rely upon evolution. Hopefully, the result will be the broader society — not only in Canada or North America, but also internationally — responding.
As far as questions of jurisdiction, if we’re very context specific, I think that we can find answers and arrive at results that respond to this constant tension that exists in the area of human rights. We know that human rights are not absolute, and that there’s a constant tension — because human rights attach to all of us. The key point that’s been missing for centuries is the gap that existed in the contextualized conditions and characteristics of Indigenous peoples.
I’m mentioning, again, the length of negotiation of the UNDRIP simply because of this resistance. We presently see it in the expressions of the Russian Federation at the United Nations, the expressions of China at the United Nations and other states, like Indonesia, working to effectively diminish the rights of Indigenous peoples.
This is my own view and opinion, but it’s hard to be tolerant; I’ll just say that.
I don’t think I’ve answered your question, but it’s an important one that I really want to think about more — not solely for the purposes of the subject matter of the committee at this moment — as well as each of the questions that have been set by you and your colleagues in regard to jurisdiction. I need to take more time to think more carefully about them. Thank you.
The Chair: Dr. Dorough, if you have anything you’d like to add further, please feel free to provide it in writing to our clerk; that would be helpful.
Ms. Dorough: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: I have a question, if Dr. Dorough wouldn’t mind one more question.
Ms. Dorough: Certainly.
Senator Coyle: You’ve been very helpful to us this evening. I want to return to your testimony, and try to understand.
You made reference, I believe, to the OAS and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Did you also mention the ILO at that time?
Ms. Dorough: Yes, I did.
Senator Coyle: Was that the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention?
Ms. Dorough: Yes.
Senator Coyle: I, frankly, don’t know a lot about either of those frameworks, and it would be helpful if there’s something that you intended for us to garner from your reference to them in relation to what we’re discussing here. That would be really helpful for us — or for me.
Ms. Dorough: Thank you. I’ll try to be quick.
I made specific reference because the ILO has recognized — I borrowed from the actual written form, and it is in quotation marks — its convention, adopted in 1989, as the only legally binding international instrument specifically addressing Indigenous rights. They have stated that the ILO convention is complementary and mutually reinforcing to the UNDRIP — that’s their view and their opinion. They have effectively linked the two instruments. Some standards are articulated in a very different way.
One example is they include a footnote that states something to the effect of — I don’t have it word for word in my mind — when they use the term “environment,” they mean the total environment: the lands, territories, waters, air and subsurface. They’re referring to the whole environment. That’s just one example in relation to the ILO convention.
In regard to the reference to the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I know that Canada is a member of the OAS. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples articulates standards in a different way; one example is Indigenous knowledge. The American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples actually links Indigenous knowledge to our cultural identity overall. There are other elements that they raise in relation to the provisions on Indigenous knowledge. They articulate it in a much broader fashion, such as its importance to education, its importance to intellectual property and a whole range of other things.
This is to suggest that in terms of the trilogy of instruments, some standards are higher than others. I was suggesting in my testimony that the Government of Canada needs to be mindful that the ILO convention is linked to the UNDRIP.
Finally, I’ll simply say that the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples actually invokes the UNDRIP explicitly in its text. This trilogy has to be understood as interrelated. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. That’s very helpful.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of our panel. I want to thank you again, Dr. Dorough, for your testimony tonight. We really appreciate it.
(The committee adjourned.)