Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 9, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to begin its study of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: 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’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.

I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.

Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot, and I’m from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory, where the sun is shining, the grass is growing, and the river is flowing. That’s the way it should be.

Senator Hartling: Well, that’s hard to top. I’m Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick. It’s nice to be here and see everybody.

Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.

Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen from Alberta, Treaty 7, where it is springtime in the Rockies.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta — clearly the heart and soul of Treaty 6 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: Good morning [Innu-Aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette, senator from Nitassinan in the beautiful province of Quebec —

[English]

— good to see you again.

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, senator from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.

Senator Greenwood: Good morning. Margo Greenwood, representing British Columbia. Home is the very best of Treaty 6 territory.

The Chair: Thank you. I would also like to welcome Senator Mary Jane McCallum, who is with us this morning. Welcome.

Today we begin the committee’s study on Bill C- 29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone to please keep your exchanges as brief as possible. Due to time limitations, each senator will have five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer. We will give priority to committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we will have a second round. In addition, I’ll ask witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing before the end of the week.

Now, I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, we welcome Kate Ledgerwood, Director General, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction; and Andy Garrow, Director, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Reconciliation Secretariat. From the Department of Justice Canada, we have Dr. Seetal Sunga, Senior Counsel, and from the Privy Council Office, Donald Booth, Director of Strategic Policy.

Thank you all for joining us today. Ms. Ledgerwood will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer session with senators.

Kate Ledgerwood, Director General, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: It is a pleasure to be here with you today. Kwe, boozhoo, ullakuut, hello. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering here today on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. We are honoured to be here to speak about Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. We will share background on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action that led to Bill C-29 and provide an overview of the proposed legislation.

In June 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, released 94 Calls to Action, which provide a framework to address the legacy of residential schools and advance reconciliation. The Calls to Action were the culmination of six years’ work by the commission, travelling across Canada to hear from survivors, their families and those affected by the residential school system.

The commission viewed reconciliation as a partnership. National reconciliation involves respecting differences and finding common ground to build a better future together. The commission’s vision led to four Calls to Action that relate to the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. It was felt that all Canadians would benefit from a body that would monitor and report on reconciliation and evaluate progress on commitments to reconciliation.

In this regard, Calls to Action 53 and 54 call for the creation of the council through legislation and the provision of funding. Calls to Action 55 and 56 clarify the expectations for the council and the various levels of government on data and information sharing and reporting on progress.

Through the work of an interim board and a transitional committee, the vision for a national council for reconciliation was further defined to identify what the council could be and what it could do. These independent bodies were made up of First Nations, Inuit and Métis members, who provided advice on a path forward, taking into account a wide range of diverse voices and perspectives.

The interim board, which was comprised of six Indigenous leaders, including a former Truth and Reconciliation commissioner, was established to provide the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations with recommendations on the creation of the council. Building on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the interim board engaged with community members, academics, businesses, arts, health and other professionals to gather input. The board’s recommendations to the minister formed the basis of the draft legislative framework.

The work continued with the transitional committee, which undertook targeted discussions with Indigenous and non‑Indigenous experts, including lawyers, data specialists and financial and reconciliation experts in regards to the draft legislative framework. The committee gathered advice on areas such as reconciliation, law, data, organizational finances, information sharing, governance and accountability. Collectively, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the interim board and the transitional committee provided the foundation for the proposed legislation.

Bill C-29 would establish the council as an independent, Indigenous-led, non-political, permanent organization. The proposed legislation would provide a guide for how the council’s board of directors would be constituted. It would also establish a process for naming the initial board. The proposed bill includes a requirement around the sharing of information from the Government of Canada to the council, which would be determined through a protocol developed in collaboration with the council. It would also set out obligations for both the council and the Government of Canada to issue annual reports.

The proposed legislation requires accountability from the council, which would be required to make public their financial statements under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. This would include a detailed statement of the council’s investment activities, including the $125-million endowment announced in Budget 2018.

The proposed bill that is before you today has also been shaped by amendments by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. These include broadening the representation of the council’s board to include elders, survivors of residential schools and other discriminatory policies and their descendants and two members from the North; inclusion on the board of a nominee identified by the Native Women’s Association of Canada; additional provisions on respecting, protecting and enhancing Indigenous languages; that the initial members of the board of directors be jointly selected by the transitional committee and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations; and that the Prime Minister be responsible for tabling in Parliament an annual report outlining the government’s plan for advancing reconciliation.

Thank you for having us here today, and we will be happy to respond to any of the committee’s questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ledgerwood. We will now open the floor to questions. Before we begin, I think it is helpful that when we get to the four-minute mark, I will hold a sign up. I don’t like interrupting, but we have a timeline here.

Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. Witnesses, I would like to just establish this: The national council for reconciliation entity is a not-for-profit corporation. It is designed to be a civil society organization. It is designed to be a non-political organization in the sense that although major Indigenous organizations will nominate people to be on the board, they are not expected and would not represent those organizations in the working of the council.

So there is no legislative base, basically, to hold the executive branch of government to account. That’s not what this entity is. Have I got that accurate?

Andy Garrow, Director, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Reconciliation Secretariat, Policy and Strategic Direction, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes, that’s accurate. Those are the provisions provided by the interim board and the transitional committee for establishing the council.

Senator Arnot: One of the things I see in this new council will be the obligation to report. You are saying you are going to create some protocols. My fundamental question is this: In order for the council to do its work, it will need data, change data and disaggregated data to be effective in its mandate. There is no method to compel the production of that data from those sources that have it — whether it is Crown-Indigenous Relations or others — in this model. I see that as a flaw. Do you foresee any difficulty in the national council receiving the data that it requires, particularly when a lot of this data would be held by the provincial and territorial governments?

Mr. Garrow: The development of the information-sharing protocol elements of the bill was envisioned for that, namely, to have a method for sharing information, particularly from the federal government, so that they would be able to provide the information that the council requires in a way that is suitable for the council to receive it. That will be discussed between the council and the federal government once it is established. You are correct that other agreements will need to be worked on with the provinces and territories; however, the relationship building with the provinces and the territories was envisioned as a role to be taken on by the council itself once it is established.

Senator Arnot: Can we anticipate the difficulties that Indigenous peoples have faced in the past to remain in the future? That would be an impediment to the work of the council.

Mr. Garrow: The legislation is trying to address that on the federal level. What we’re able to do with this particular piece of legislation is what the federal government can be compelled to do.

Senator Arnot: Thank you.

Senator Sorensen: Welcome to everybody. Nice to see you here. I appreciate the history you have given us on the process to date.

It was the interim board and the transitional board, but can you remind me what the first one was, please?

Ms. Ledgerwood: The actual Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I need some clarity on this point: In various briefings on the bill, I’ve heard what I would call conflicting explanations, although maybe both are right, as to whether the council was conceived as an oversight body to hold the government to account or as a civil society group that would facilitate the sharing of best practices. Also, in Minister Miller’s speech in the House of Commons, he said that it will “. . . measure our progress so that the government and Canada are held accountable for our commitments to Indigenous peoples.”

Can you clarify or repeat something in your notes as to what the council’s intended mandate will be? If it is to hold the government to account, what abilities would the council have to allow them to grade, if you will, the government, and what options would they have if the government is, in fact, falling short?

Ms. Ledgerwood: Perhaps I can start and then my colleague Mr. Garrow will add to my response. The two points that you raised are not necessarily inconsistent or can’t exist separately from one another. Yes, the advice we received from the interim board and the transitional committee was to have an independent organization assess how things are going around reconciliation and to have someone who is outside of government providing the direction advice and holding us to account around how we are doing in advancing the different Calls to Action.

As well, the interim board and the transitional committee felt that the future national council for reconciliation can highlight the best practices and the good work that is taking place across this country at various levels, whether at the federal, provincial, territorial, municipal or community-base level, to show them as a path forward for other jurisdictions. I think they felt those two could be held together.

As to holding the government to account, the levers, that’s where they see it through the reports that must be tabled. They will provide a report and their direction, advice and recommendations on how they think governments and different organizations are doing around reconciliation. As the act will require, the federal government must respond by having the Prime Minister table in the House of Commons this report on how we are responding to the points that they have raised. I don’t know if my colleague has anything else.

Mr. Garrow: No, thank you.

Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I will go on the second round, although I will be surprised if my round-two question isn’t asked in the next few minutes.

Senator Coyle: Thank you, witnesses, for all your work leading up to today and for being with us here today. We know it has been a number of years to get us to this point. I think everybody at this table is supportive of the creation of this national council. Of course, we embrace the Calls to Action. However, we know that there is controversy around this. We’ve heard from different people in our own chamber at second reading. Also, many of us have been meeting individually with different parties.

I want to put a couple of questions out on the table related to issues that have been raised either in our chamber and/or in meetings with interested parties.

You described the process, and I really appreciate having that bigger picture on what the process has been. It sounds a little different from the different perspectives that we’ve heard, particularly around the level of consultation. One of the concerns that we have heard, particularly from the Inuit representatives — and I’ve heard directly from Natan Obed and his organization — is that they actually weren’t consulted, that something was fairly fully baked, and they were asked, “Well, how do you like it?” as opposed to being involved in co-development at the various stages.

I would like to hear an answer about what that consultation actually was, or whether there is any claim of co-development on the part of the governments, and what the answer is to some parties who are not happy with it.

The other big elephant in the room is the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I’m not saying that I weigh in one way or the other. We are here to get at what the best piece of legislation is. That’s our job.

We’ve heard that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is not happy with what they see as exclusion of their national body from having a similar status to other national bodies. Can you talk a bit about why that was never included along the way and why it never made it to the final legislation as it came to us?

Mr. Garrow: On the engagement, I can start there. The bill was conceived initially in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report as one of the Calls to Action. The TRC did years of engagement in coming to their Calls to Action, even describing in the Calls to Action what they thought should be in the bill, including the information-sharing elements of it, around who should be on the council and so on. That was done with over 9,000 residential school survivors who attended events and 150,000 Canadians who attended their events in communities across the country over the seven years that it was in existence.

In addition to that, the interim board then conducted their engagement. They went to a broad range of Canadians and experts to gather their information provided in their report. The transitional committee, building off all that work done by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the interim board, focused on the elements that we needed to have advice on. That’s where they were more focused on the legal aspects, the information-sharing protocol and the financial aspects to determine whether the bill needed to include anything or if there was anything that we needed to be talking about at that point in relation to the bill. That was the engagement that was done.

In addition to that, in determining the interim board and the transitional committee, there was outreach as well to the national Indigenous organizations on the members who were appointed. First Nations, Inuit and Métis members were appointed to the interim board and to the council as well. When the interim board completed their final report, they provided it to each of the national Indigenous organizations and offered to meet with them to get their feedback as well.

On the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the interim board had recommended that it be the Assembly of First Nations, AFN; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK; and the Métis National Council, MNC, that nominate members to the board based on section 35 of the Constitution that has First Nations, Inuit and Métis organizations that represent them. That was the basis of the recommendation that was put forward.

Then it was the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee and their amendments where they included the Native Women’s Association of Canada. It was voted in Parliament to remove the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in that amendment as well.

Senator Tannas: In terms of holding the government to account and the roughly $125 million that would go into a trust, is it envisioned that this organization would become some kind of a legal action organization for holding the government to account? Will they be suing the federal government for money for things? Is it envisioned that it could become that kind of an organization in terms of holding government to account, or is it more the reporting, letting the weight of the report speak for itself? Could you provide clarification on that, and particularly on what it is not?

Mr. Garrow: The mandate and the activities are really about holding government to account through the reporting mechanisms and using those mechanisms to provide advice and comment on the actions that the federal government, other levels of government and other areas of society are taking toward reconciliation. It doesn’t envision a legal recourse like that.

Senator Tannas: So it doesn’t envision it. Does it preclude it or does it leave it to the council to decide how they want to conduct themselves?

Mr. Garrow: I would leave it at that it doesn’t envision it. On top of that, through the discussions with the interim board and the transitional committee, they want to see the advancement of reconciliation. As mentioned earlier, it will highlight some of the positive things that are happening across the country as well. They see that as the path forward.

Senator Hartling: Thank you for being here, for all the work on this and for providing that explanation. I’m really pleased this is coming to our committee because it is one of the bills on which we’ve had lots of discussion.

I know there have been some great recommendations and amendments in the bill at the House. Were there some that didn’t make the cut that you might talk about and that we might think about? I know these are good, but was there something that was put forth that didn’t make it?

Mr. Garrow: I don’t have any off the top of my mind, no.

Senator Hartling: Wasn’t there anything that was proposed and that wasn’t considered?

Mr. Garrow: No.

Senator Hartling: Thank you. I just wanted to know that because we’re talking about what next and how we’re going to move forward with this. I’m trying to gain as much information as I can because it is one of those bills that is complex but simple. Thank you.

Mr. Garrow: What was envisioned here was trying to create a legal framework and allow the council to do its work and, as much as possible, create space for the council to do a lot of the work as well. It is a work plan going forward, with other engagements, which we talked about already here.

There is a real role for the council to take on a lot of that work once it’s established. The clear message we heard from the interim board and the transitional committee was about creating that space for the council to do the work and move these things forward. A lot of this is trying to create the legal framework but having the space for the council and its board to direct the vision as much as possible while maintaining what’s in the legislation.

Senator Hartling: Do you feel that this is there now and that it could go forward with what’s there?

Mr. Garrow: That’s what is there now, yes.

Senator Greenwood: Thank you for attending today and thank you for all your work thus far. I am probably a bit repetitive in terms of what has already been asked, but certainly this whole conversation around consultation has been huge. You’ve explained that, of course, a lot of work was done through the TRC over the six years, and that absolutely directed where you were going with this.

I have a couple of questions. One is about lessons learned. Do you see what could have been done differently to perhaps be more inclusive? Because we’re hearing from a number of people that it wasn’t an inclusive process. Are there some lessons learned? If we could turn back the clock, what would we do differently?

I’m also puzzled by the not-for-profit organization. I know it doesn’t demand that within the Calls to Action, yet we’ve landed on the not-for-profit organization. Also, the support of this council was to be multi-year funding and not necessarily an endowment, as is being proposed. When I read that, it could have been continuous funding, so I’m wondering about that as well.

I will wait for the second round to address accountability, but if you could provide comments on some of those points. So the first is about some of the lessons learned. Would you do something differently in terms of what we call co-development and inclusivity? Some thinking around the not-for-profit: How did we land there? And then could you provide some brief comments on the multi-year funding piece, please? I don’t expect you to have all the answers.

Ms. Ledgerwood: In terms of lessons learned around consultation, I think you’ve heard us say that at the point we are at now, years of work have gone into this around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, leading to the interim board and the transitional committee. The work of the board and the committee was about trying to find the right balance of not wanting to go back and redo all the hard work that came out through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the extensive engagement they had undertaken — talking to over 6,500 people, various events taking place throughout the country — and hearing quite clearly from survivors of residential schools and their families about what they felt should be the approach going forward. It was trying to find that balance of how to build on what has already been done while trying to determine an approach or path forward on how to establish something that had never been done before, namely, setting up this board.

The interim board and transitional committee members are esteemed Indigenous leaders who were identified through initial engagement with various organizations to develop that, but they were also set up as independent. Our approach in supporting the work of the interim board and the transitional committee was to take support and direction from those leaders, who had identified an approach and path in terms of how they wanted to move forward with the work. They were clear that they didn’t want to redo everything that had already been done. They tried to find a way to focus on the key areas that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, through their advice in the Calls to Action, said these were the places that needed attention to get to the point where we can introduce the legislation.

Picking up on what my colleague Mr. Garrow has said, the advice from the transitional committee and the interim board was to see this legislation as a frame. They did feel that it should be the future national council for reconciliation and its board who do a lot of the work around what should be the areas to focus on; it can help define what reconciliation is.

The question that comes up quite often is there is no definition of reconciliation. That was very purposeful. We know that, through all the work, no one clear definition has come out. As you rightly noted, senator, there are very different views around this work. It’s a challenge to find the balance.

Mr. Garrow: The not-for-profit was a mechanism for the sustainability of the organization and to allow it to have charitable status and to seek funding from multiple sources, in addition to the funding received from the federal government.

Ms. Ledgerwood: In terms of the question on the multi-year funding, we do know that the initial endowment of $125 million was identified through the work of the transitional committee and interim board members.

They see the challenge as identifying the right source of funding and the amount of funding for an organization that doesn’t yet exist and doesn’t have a full understanding of its mandate and what its partnerships will look like. They see it as an amount that can get the work kick-started. Certainly, there could be potential for future considerations around additional funding sources once the board is up and running.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My question is around the difference between this commission and a tribunal. There has been some discussion about this council being used as a shield for the government and that, as long as this council signs off on something, the national Indigenous organizations, or NIOs, and the other organizations who have real issues with the government will not be able to address them because this council will become a kind of a shield.

Can you help us to understand the difference between what this council does in its work in reconciliation and what a tribunal would do if we were to have one? Also, will this council interfere with the nation-to-nation relationship that Indigenous people must have?

Ms. Ledgerwood: Thank you, senator, for the question. I’ll start, and my colleague will answer more in terms of why it was set up through the not-for-profit. There is a clear reasoning behind that approach.

Regarding the premise of establishing this council, it has never been the intention that it would ever replace the direct relationship government needs to have with its rights holders. Those relationships will continue through the existing channels that are in place. This council would not become the new body through which the government would pursue relationships with rights holders for Indigenous organizations and groups.

In terms of the tribunal, do you want to speak as to why it was set up the way that it was, Mr. Garrow?

Mr. Garrow: Sure. One of the recommendations from the interim board was that in order to ensure the independence of the council, it would be outside any parliamentary reporting or structures of government. It was set up as an independent organization for that reason. It doesn’t have to respond to government and it’s not taking direction from government in any way nor is seen to be.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: What about the idea that if this council puts a report out, and the report says that everything is fine — I’m not anticipating that it does — but leadership in the Indigenous community does not believe it’s fine, those reports could act as a shield? That is, the council for reconciliation could say that everything is great, but Indigenous leaders could be calling for action. Do you understand how that could be uncomfortable for Indigenous leaders?

Ms. Ledgerwood: I appreciate the question and I’ll try to answer it. It is a challenge in some ways because we’re talking about an organization that has not yet been established. It has not yet determined what its full scope of mandate will be or the relationships it will be establishing with its various partners.

Through the advice and direction of the conversations that have taken place with the interim board and the transitional committee, they also see a role for this board to work with various Indigenous organizations, which could include the national Indigenous organizations and other grassroots ones. They will form their own relationship.

As well, this organization will include Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. It will have a broader focus, and the relationship that the government will have will likely continue through its existing channels using a distinctions-based approach. As this legislation was developed, we never envisioned that it would ever supersede that relationship or create a different channel.

Mr. Garrow: This is really about responding to the TRC Calls to Action, the work done there and the vision around reconciliation, as well as having a council that can create that and then a path forward in terms of the work that needs to be done in that regard.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: I had the privilege of serving on a commission of inquiry as commissioner and meeting thousands of people, listening to them and reading their testimonies. In the appeals for justice, you will understand that not all the families specifically asked for 250, in addition to the 21 calls for Quebec.

I can understand that passionate and intelligent people, whom I met during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, are proposing and demanding accountability and monitoring mechanisms for what is being done in terms of reconciliation. I understand this because I experienced it with the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

I would like everyone, even those on the transition committee, my fellow senators and you to understand this; everything is political. For someone born to an Indigenous mother and father, everything is political, from birth to the last breath. I understand that some organizations see a shadow in their relationship with you. Do you agree with me that you, as Canadian citizens and residents of your respective regions, have the choice to decide who represents you at the municipal, provincial and federal levels? Do you have that choice, yes or no?

I see you nodding your head. It’s the same for me. Organizations need to be there, but representation is where you can come to think that someone has power over me as an Innu woman. I will always be called here to the table. My community is 700 kilometres from Quebec City, and my chief represents me. Whether I vote or not, he represents me.

It’s very important to develop, if you’re comfortable — a board of directors can take another form. Our political organizations, such as ITK, the Métis National Council, and the Assembly of First Nations, need to have a formal relationship with their members. There are hybrid boards where people are appointed because they have a formal relationship, people from civil society, business, and so on. Would you be willing to see that kind of proposal from the committee and say, “Let’s make sure that there’s a way of doing things that respects these three organizations, that work for elected officials across Canada”?

[English]

I asked “yes” or “no” if you can choose who represents you. I didn’t hear anything. I saw the reply, but I need a reply for the record.

Ms. Ledgerwood: Thank you, senator, for the question. As you’ve heard us say, we received advice from both the transitional committee and the interim board that they felt there was a place to establish a national council that could bring together Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians to highlight the good practices, the path forward around reconciliation and to have a chance to embed that through society by highlighting those good practices.

As you saw through the process that went through the House committee, advice and direction were received back on how that representation should look for the board. We welcome any recommendations coming from this committee as well if there are decisions around additional criteria and different organizations that should comprise the board.

Senator Audette: I want to say thank you for your presentation. I hope that we will improve this bill because we need to. Canadians have many organizations that they can turn to for support, so I hope you will support us if we bring forward some amazing amendments so that you can do good analysis.

Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to go back to the point about civil society versus politics. A lot of the Indigenous scholars now believe — as do I — that it is personal and it’s political.

As she said, from the minute we’re born, we’re wrapped and braided into the Indian Act. As women, it’s even worse. If civil society is to represent us, how will they understand that political oppression and political assimilation we underwent when I was in residential school?

From there, I want to go into the consultation. When we gave our stories, that was not consultation. When you are giving your story, there is trauma, and a lot of violence is coming out. It’s egregious for me to hear people say this is consultation. That was eight years ago. Many of us have changed, and we have healed. We have embraced our Indigenous sovereignty. So there should have been consultation done.

What is it that they are looking at doing? You look at the money going in and you think, “Well, what about the water? What about the housing?” How can you have self-determination when you’re still in the middle of violence? We’re passing legislation that is still colonial. I see it. Even reading the draft for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, I see it’s still colonial.

So with this bill, UNDRIP was supposed to be the framework, and it’s still in draft form. I read it. The chiefs were unhappy with it. If UNDRIP is not ready, then what are you going to use as a framework? The rights that we do have — and no one can say we don’t have them — are inherent. They are ours. Is that the framework you’re going to work with?

I’m concerned about the not-for-profit versus trust. Why the switch? What are the benefits and risks of both of them? Could you comment on those?

Mr. Garrow: On the engagement, I hear you, and there is also a role for the engagement to continue, right? This is the very start of the process. This is the start for the national council for reconciliation and what they are going to be doing in terms of engagement. In terms of determining and charting that path forward, there was always a vision of the work that would be done by the council once it is established.

I think that’s a very important part, too, because one of the things we’ve often heard from the interim board and folks who have been involved is that reconciliation is very much an evolving process. That’s what you just spoke to in terms of how things have changed from seven years ago to now. Again, that’s why it’s important to have that space for the council to do a lot of that engagement as well once it’s established. That is a big part of the work ahead. I have heard from the transitional committee members about that work in the first year, and then the years and years of the work that needs to be undertaken by the council to engage with people to understand where we’re at now, determine their path and programming and work plan going forward.

In terms of the plan for how this is going to be established, the framework is what is here in the legislation right now. That was what was provided through that work by the interim board and the transitional committee and what we did hear through the Calls to Action from the council — that’s the framework we have here. It’s always within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This doesn’t supersede or impact any of those. Those will continue to exist. That will be the work of the council, again, to ensure they are looking at the work of the UN declaration, the work that is out here and what is in the legislation that they need to be working on.

The Chair: We will now move on to the second round.

Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses. I can say I’m really happy to see the Department of Justice and the Privy Council Office, or PCO, here today. I’m asking this question principally of Mr. Booth, I believe.

Mr. Booth, the Privy Council Office is at the top of the change. The Privy Council Office runs the whole show. You have got the controls on lots of levers. For that reason, I’m going to address this issue. In the past, we have seen, for instance, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls thwarted by delay in getting information from the government and thwarted by not getting the right information, which would be disaggregated information — data that will create real change.

If you look at what this council will do, one can think that some of the big indicia of success in the movement of reconciliation will be on the files of child welfare, education, health and justice. Those are the big areas. The Privy Council Office has a significant role to play because you can be cooperative and constructive and aid the council in its work, or you can be perceived as thwarting the work by not cooperating and not being constructive in the mandate of the council.

So, I look at the high constitutional principle of the honour of the Crown — which has gotten us to this point — the principle of the fiduciary duty, section 35 treaty and Indigenous rights in the Constitution and treaty implementation in a modern context. Those are the lenses that should be put on this.

I note, Mr. Booth, that you are Canadian Secretary to The King. King Charles III just received coronation this weekend, and it was indicated that King Charles has his eyes on Indigenous issues and reconciliation.

I have said all that to say this: What is the Privy Council going to do? What can you commit the Privy Council to doing to support the Prime Minister and cabinet in achieving the spirit and intent of reconciliation? What will be different in the future from the patterns we have seen in the past?

Donald Booth, Director of Strategic Policy and Canadian Secretary to The King, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office: Thank you, Senator Arnot. Just to pick up on your point, it was very special to see that His Majesty met with the leaders of the national Indigenous organizations for a private audience on Thursday in the run-up to the coronation. I think that’s a very important moment in the history and voyage of reconciliation.

You talked about being obstructionist. It is in absolutely nobody’s interest that there be obstruction, that there not be information sharing and that the government drag its feet. I think the spirit of this bill and the letter of this bill reflect that. I think they reflect the fact that the government is taking this very seriously.

We’re at the beginning of this particular process, but look at some of the provisions in the bill. I think one of the key ones is the information-sharing protocol. Some people have pointed to it and said there is not enough. I think if everyone comes to the table in the right spirit, the right information — the proper information and the appropriate information — will be shared.

Part of the reason I’m here is that the Prime Minister is specifically mentioned in the bill. It’s always appreciated. The Prime Minister is rarely, if ever, mentioned in federal legislation. I can think of probably fewer than half a dozen pieces of legislation where the Prime Minister is mentioned by name. The Prime Minister is on the hook to be accountable under clause 17(3) to table the government’s response. So the PCO will be implicated in the development of that government response directly, working with our colleagues at CIRNAC and the Department of Justice. I think that alone signals how seriously this is being taken.

Literally, I think there may be three pieces of federal legislation with the name of the Prime Minister.

Senator Sorensen: My second question for Ms. Ledgerwood was asked. I am going to ask a question to Ms. Sunga. I am going to talk about Indigenous people who have been caught up in the justice system as a result of intergenerational trauma and how the council may play a role in that. Could you first speak to what is being done to assist Indigenous people in the prison system who may need mental health and addictions treatment, skills training and other help to have them reintegrate back into the communities? It would be great to hear some success stories.

Is this aid work facilitated mainly by government agencies or by civil society? Tying it into Bill C-29, do you think the council will be able to play a role in standardizing what are hopefully some best practices?

Seetal Sunga, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. The national council for reconciliation provides a framework for overseeing government action on the TRC Calls to Action and, writ large, any efforts towards reconciliation, including work on the United Nations Declaration Act, or UNDA, Calls to Action. Justice initiatives are captured in that. All of the work to reduce representation in the criminal justice system, to promote self-determination within communities and to basically self-govern their own justice systems — all of that work is captured within both the national council for reconciliation and the measures under the UNDA action plan coming forward.

I see those things working together and I see the flexibility in the mandate of the national council for reconciliation to promote that. They will be able to speak to that and to look at all the things that are happening across government to advance the goal of improving the interaction between the justice system and Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Senator Coyle: It has been good to hear all of the voices here among our witnesses.

I have two further questions, including one that is getting at the fundamental issue of where we are. The intent is beautiful and necessary. Nobody will argue with that. It’s also very legitimate in terms of where it has come from. Let’s get that on the table.

However, we are at the point where — although it has been referred to as early days — there has been a fair bit of effort by the TRC, the interim board, the transitional committee, all the work you’ve all been doing, the House, et cetera. Still, there is a real problem with trust, and trust is going to be critical once this is in place for this to do its job as envisioned by the TRC.

My colleague asked about lessons learned. Lessons learned are often things to apply for next time around. I’m wondering if there are some not just lessons learned for next time around but some remedies that could be put in place to restore trust among those who have lost their trust — in the process, in particular — so that we can move forward with this important piece of legislation. That’s my first question, and I have another smaller one. I know it’s kind of a big-picture thing, but it’s at the core of what we’re experiencing right now.

Ms. Ledgerwood: Thank you, senator, for the question. I’ll begin and then see if Mr. Garrow wants to add.

In terms of building trust, we absolutely understand that foundational to moving a relationship forward is having that trust in place. I know that through the work we do in our organization and department, that is how we approach anything. We try to establish that relationship built on trust.

As you’ve heard us say and you’ll hear us say often, we see that we’re still at the beginning stages for this national council. Going forward, there is a lot of work that we will be doing once it is established. The advice and direction that the interim board and transitional committee have been providing is to go out and do the engagement that will help support those conversations. We appreciate and recognize that additional conversations will need to take place in terms of understanding what its work and mandate will be and to build those relationships.

I think this will come from trying to establish open lines of communication. It will come from a different place than if government tries to do that work in advance of the board versus what the board itself, once comprised, can do in terms of engaging more directly and creating a more direct relationship to help build that trust.

As we mentioned, outside of federal government, provincial and territorial conversations will need to take place with the board. There will be community, grassroots and Indigenous organizations, all of that work. But at least from the advice and direction we are receiving, that will be for the board to do. That will probably be one of the first things they do in terms of helping to establish their mandate. Also, creating those lines of communication will be vital to support the work of this council going forward.

Senator Coyle: Thank you for your answer. It’s not easy.

One issue that has been raised in our second-reading debate is that of economic reconciliation. I could be wrong because we’re early in studying this bill, but my understanding is that there is nothing in this bill that precludes us from including economic reconciliation. I always assumed that likely those who will lead this effort going forward will identify that as an absolutely critical area of reconciliation for the work to continue in a positive way.

Can you speak to that issue that has been raised and where you see that?

Ms. Ledgerwood: Thank you, senator. I think you’re absolutely correct in how you framed it. The bill is not necessarily specifically identifying economic reconciliation, but that by no means precludes the council from exploring those areas of economic reconciliation. As you’ve highlighted, we would see that as the work that the first board would do through its engagement and understanding how reconciliation is seen by the partners they will be working with. We anticipate that economic reconciliation is certainly a conversation that we are seeing coming up more often.

The Chair: Unfortunately, we’re out of time, but certainly any of the witnesses can feel free to provide answers in writing to the clerk before the end of the week. She will be happy to accept them.

Senator Greenwood: My question is around relationships and follows up on the comments of Senator Audette and Senator McCallum.

I’m interested in this not-for-profit. As we know, the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are represented and recognized in the Constitution and represented by three organizations. I’m wondering what the formal relationships will be with this particular group, because they are the rights holders; they are the people who can make the decisions.

We have in the bill before us that the Prime Minister reports out to Parliament or the House. Will our Indigenous leaders report to their memberships in the same way?

My not-for-profit question is around the leverage points for change. Sometimes not-for-profits don’t have the same formal levers for change that other mechanisms might have. I’m trying to figure out what this might look like with respect to formal and informal relationships. How do we create the change that we know will be needed if we don’t have all the decision makers around the table to move that together?

Mr. Garrow: Thanks for the question. There is a balance of trying to get all the different recommendations that were put forward from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the interim board and the transitional committee. The not-for-profit is around establishing it as an independent organization outside the confines of government, as well as receiving direction from government so that they can independently provide their analysis and views to government and to Canadians around how they feel reconciliation is moving forward, how it has been advanced and what needs to be done. That’s an important part of it.

With that, some of the levers aren’t in place because they are an independent organization outside of government. Those are the things that we’re trying to be balanced by the board.

Senator Greenwood: How does a not-for-profit then go beyond advocacy or different levers to create that change?

The Chair: You can respond in writing. I’m sorry to interrupt, but we do have a hard stop at ten o’clock. I hate being the taskmaster on this. The time for this panel is now complete. Thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us today.

We will now welcome our second panel.

We now welcome Mandy Gull-Masty, Grand Chief, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), Cree Nation Government; and Mary Culbertson, Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan. Thank you both for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.

I would ask everyone to please keep exchanges as brief as possible. Each senator will have five minutes for the question and the answer. Priority will go to committee members and then to the other colleagues. I would also ask the witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing by the end of the week to the clerk.

I now invite Grand Chief Gull-Masty to give her opening remarks.

Mandy Gull-Masty, Grand Chief, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), Cree Nation Government: [Indigenous language spoken].

Good morning. My name is Mandy Gull-Masty. I am one of the proud language carriers of my nation, so I always begin any session by greeting others in my Cree language. So I could say, “Good morning. Nice to meet you all. It is a pleasure to be here this morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation.”

I am the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and also the Chairperson of the Cree Nation Government. The Grand Council of the Crees and the Cree Nation Government exercise a range of governmental functions aimed at promoting and protecting the rights and interests of approximately 20,000 Crees in Eeyou Istchee and northern Quebec. We are under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, one of the oldest modern-day land claims.

In principle, we do support Bill C-29 and the establishment of a national council for reconciliation so that it is properly funded, it remains relevant and representative for all Indigenous groups so it can bring about real change.

The national council for reconciliation was called for by the TRC in response to the gravity of the trauma impacting Indigenous peoples as a result of years of colonial and assimilation policies, including Indian residential schools.

This legacy continues to manifest through higher rates of poverty, addictions, overrepresentation of children in the welfare system, violence against women and girls, substandard health care and education, lack of housing and essential and clean drinking water. This is unacceptable in a country like Canada.

The continued discovery of unmarked graves on the sites of residential schools across Canada is a constant reminder of the years of colonial policies. Despite some recent developments in advancing reconciliation, much work remains to be done. The legacy and the impacts of these colonial policies on generations of Indigenous peoples still continue.

The seriousness of this trauma and the impact suffered by Indigenous peoples call for the same level of seriousness in establishing and maintaining a new council. There must be a systematic shift between Indigenous peoples and Canadians. The council has become one important part of this new relationship — if effective and representative.

We echo some of the concerns that have been expressed in regard to Bill C-29, particularly the need for the council to be properly funded and to remain relevant for and representative of all Indigenous peoples in Canada.

As currently drafted, Bill C-29 does not set out any express commitment for multi-year funding as recommended by the TRC. In fact, there is no mention in Bill C-29 of how the council will be funded. At the very least, Bill C-29 should indicate that the approved budget of the council will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as federal legislation does in regard to certain other statutory bodies.

Bill C-29 should also commit the government or the minister to recommend annually to Parliament the appropriation of adequate funding to ensure the continued effective work and operation of the council. This would send a positive signal that Canada takes this new council seriously. It is recommended in advancing reconciliation that stability is provided.

Another concern is representation and relevancy. The council calls for Indigenous peoples in Canada to have permanent members to be appointed by nomination by certain national organizations. Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, although supporting AFN, is not represented by them. Modern land claims groups hold a special status. We have a treaty that allows for us to have a special nation-to-nation relationship with the government. We are not represented by national organizations; therefore, we are not provided the opportunity to participate, but we are still entitled to reconciliation.

I note that my time is running short. I will provide the remainder of my remarks in writing to the committee to review. I do think it is important to recognize there are unique circumstances, needs, interests and aspirations for all Indigenous groups. It is my hope that there will be representation of all Indigenous groups, including my own, in an open, transparent, inclusive and relevant manner for us to participate.

I also want to ensure that representation is inclusive and is fully reflected throughout the council and through its appointments. Reconciliation is a partnership approach. It is an approach that requires those who reconcile and those who are to be reconciled with to participate in the process fully.

I do also want to note that I feel that the consultations leading to the development of this draft legislation should have been more representative and inclusive.

The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Gull-Masty. Certainly feel free to submit any testimony or remarks to the clerk by the end of the week. Thank you for that.

I now invite Treaty Commissioner Culbertson to give her opening remarks.

Mary Culbertson, Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan: Good morning, honourable senators. [Indigenous language spoken]. I am speaking to you today from the unceded and unsurrendered territory of Treaty 6 in Saskatoon. I am from the Keeseekoose Anishinaabe First Nation in Treaty 4. I am the Treaty Commissioner for Saskatchewan, and I’m very honoured to present to you today from Treaty 6.

The Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan has been mandated for over 30 years to promote the education and common understanding of the treaties in Saskatchewan. That’s primarily through public education, education through curriculum in the schools and, of course, creating better relations, all centred around the treaty obligations here in these territories.

We have, in the years, evolved to working on specific research that has to do with residential schools, unmarked graves, missing children, some land claims research and, most of all, looking for treaty annuity pay lists to establish lineage, as of late.

We also have a measurement and evaluation framework of reconciliation efforts using the TRC Calls to Action, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We use all of these as indicators to show outcomes. Working with survivors and various Indigenous people throughout Saskatchewan, we have created this measurement and evaluation framework.

When I was asked to give commentary on Bill C-29, in researching this, I see immediately that there are huge gaps in communication. We have seen these gaps during my last five years here, from the top down — specifically in us looking for information so that I can monitor and observe and report on the treaty relationship here.

I have to individually go out and seek things, whether it’s our First Nations-led organization here, the political body, being the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, or through our tribal councils, our friendship centres. They would welcome a body that would bring together all these different agencies and representative organizations, nations, tribal councils, service providers, friendship centres, so we could actually have somewhere to report.

There is the Reconciliation Secretariat, but we have had little communication with them in terms of finding out what they do and how they can help us in our work. I see there are major gaps.

On the appointment of people to begin the reconciliation council — I’ve been contemplating that as well — they are not supposed to be political, yet political organizations would be appointing these individuals. So, as such, it still is political.

The incorporation aspect, that’s a lens that’s very non-Indigenous, but I understand it is a kind of built-in accountability framework internally for an organization.

Most of all, I wouldn’t want to see this work hinder any work on a national or international treaty commission or on the Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson position that was supposed to be initiated.

I will end my introduction there and I will leave it open for questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Treaty Commissioner Culbertson.

Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses here today. My question will be directed to Mary Culbertson, the chief commissioner, and, if time allows, I’d like to get a comment from the grand chief as well.

Here is the issue. You talked about gaps in communication and information and data collection. Ms. Culbertson, you are noted and your office is noted for being deeply committed to reconciliation. You’ve been working on this. You have a measurement framework that you currently use. Do you think that this new national council for reconciliation should have a mechanism to compel governments — federal, provincial, territorial — to collect data, to change data and to provide disaggregated data to the national council so that it can be inputted into some kind of a measurement framework that the national council would have? So it’s all about the need to collect data on big issues like child welfare, housing, violence, health and justice.

Ms. Culbertson: There is the need for data. Without data, we can’t fully inform the work going forward nor report accurately. So I see where this gap could be with the national council if they are not being provided that data. Where I am, at the Treaty Commission, we are not readily provided that data. We have to go looking for it. I can see where that gap would be huge.

As well, when we talk about being compelled to provide these, what will be vetted? What will be given in its pure form, when it comes to reporting, when it comes to statistics, when it comes to data? Who does the national council talk to? Where do they collect the information?

When you have a report or you are holding government accountable, what’s the accountability? For example, sanctions — are there any sanctions? Or is it just a report saying, “Oh, you didn’t do this; you didn’t do that. You weren’t very good to Indigenous people this year”? Where is the mechanism to hold them to account rather than just another report that will just sit on a shelf?

There need to be teeth, so to speak. It needs to have claws so it can actually do its job. Those huge communications gaps need to be filled. We have existing organizations, like ourselves at the Treaty Commission, that are doing this work already, but we don’t have a national body to support the work that we’re doing. Maybe this would help. Certain nuances definitely need to be corrected, such as the reporting and the collection of data. That’s crucial in order to get an accurate picture.

I’ve heard the concerns from people asking, “What is this going to be? Will it just be a bunch of highly paid board members sitting somewhere, making decisions? Whose lens are they going to be looking through?”

When I was looking at the composition of the board, yes, there is a minimal requirement for Indigenous representation from Indigenous organizations, but a total of 9 to 13. If there is a minimum requirement, would that council be stuck with just four Indigenous representatives? It needs to be more diverse, and there needs to be more Indigenous representation guaranteed on there. I will end with that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Arnot: Grand chief, do you agree with the need to have a mechanism to compel the collection of data, a mechanism to give greater accountability through more “teeth and claws” in this mechanism?

Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question. I do agree. Although this is a national initiative, there has been an individualized response from provinces to respond to reconciliation. I reside in the province of Quebec. There has been a unique approach to reconciliation by Quebec, but I don’t know if it is one that is conducive to the interests of the Indigenous peoples in Quebec.

When I’m looking at data, the determinants, the measurements of data should not be criteria that are evaluated according to lesser representation in the judicial system and fewer cases of children in child welfare. These are not Indigenous terms of measurement.

In my nation, we evaluate social well-being through the lens of miyupimaatisiium, meaning “being alive well.” This is a holistic approach. The individual is able to self-declare their emotional, spiritual, physical and mental well-being, how they wish to improve it and which mechanisms they want to use, such as increasing learning their language, participating in land-based healing and so on.

Looking at the measurement of being able to identify with your Indigenousness as a person is an important criterion that is a specific lens only understood by Indigenous people. I do think that looking strictly at hard numbers is not a conclusive data measurement for me.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to Treaty Commissioner Culbertson and to Grand Chief Gull-Masty for being here with us. My question will be for the grand chief.

You have stated that, in principle, you’re supportive of the creation of this council. However, consultations could have been more inclusive. That’s not a new comment, but it’s interesting to hear that from you. It’s important that it is well funded and that there is secure multi-year funding. We hear there’s an endowment, but that’s not enough. It needs to be relevant and effective.

You ended up with a point which I would like to tease out a bit more, namely, on it being representative of all. You were clear that you are not represented by the AFN or by the other two national Indigenous organizations. Could you speak to how representation of groups like yours — the 20,000 people that you represent and others like yours — could be better in the new model of this council? How could that be accomplished?

Ms. Gull-Masty: Sure. I do want to state that the treaty of the Cree Nation Government and the Grand Council of the Crees allows us to have a special relationship with the government. We speak directly at the provincial level and with the Prime Minister. Yesterday, I had an opportunity to sit at the modern land claims group that met. We had an engagement session with the Prime Minister and his ministers.

One of the things that I think was omitted in this process is remembering that not every group participates in those national bodies. Although I acknowledge the work of the AFN — I support National Chief Archibald, the Métis National Council President Cassidy Caron, as well as Natan Obed — these groups do not represent us simply because of the way our treaty is written. As modern land claims and agreements emerge, there is a special and different relationship that these groups do not have the capacity to speak to. If there is no seat or seats made available to those unique nations that are having a relationship in a modern context with the governments, it is not representative; it is not inclusive.

Regarding some of the components in Indigenous government such as ours, we do have special representation for youth. That’s really important. We elect our own regional youth grand chief who speaks to the needs and issues of youth on a regional scale. It is probably one of the most challenging jobs to put a 20-year-old in charge of identifying the needs of the youth population, especially considering the things they are going through, but that’s a lens that needs to be part of this discussion.

I would like to see the representation of specific youth appointees, as well as elder appointees. You need that wisdom and that guidance at the table to give you those gentle reminders.

Calling attention to the unique experience of a residential school survivor is something that I think is very important. Although this was something that many peoples participated in, it was an individualized experience. We have to remember that. That’s an important lens to have in part of the work that’s being done by this council.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: [Innu-Aimun spoken]. Thank you very much. Are you comfortable in French? Since my arrival in the Senate — I’m really glad that we finally have someone who is teaching the importance of your responsibilities, as Grand Chief, to your people. Even when I came to testify with Quebec Native Women, it was often the same organizations that appeared here. We have the opportunity to decolonize — or “Innu-ize” or “Cree-ize” — a process, knowing that there are many nations across Canada and people like you who carry the same message.

Could you suggest — verbally, of course, and in writing later — some wording as to what that exercise might look like? Yes, there’s a board, but there may also be a formal space for modern treaty holders that could then be inserted into the bill. The mechanics can be developed later, but we need to make sure that the legacy you’re giving us today can shine through from one government to another.

Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, senator. I’m proud to be here with you today. I will send you something in writing later, but I want to give an example. I represented Quebec during the Pope’s visit to Canada. At that time, I had the opportunity to meet with many nations, including treaty nations, agreement nations, and unrecognized nations. It was a unique process. You have to understand that there are a large number of Indigenous people in Canada, but there are several types of Indigenous people.

There are some, like me, who come from a nation where we still speak our language and live on our land. They go hunting and fishing. However, there are also nations that have lost their language and access to their traditional territory.

When we look at the different impacts on nations, we see that this has to be represented in the context of reconciliation. Everyone has been affected differently, and everyone also suffers different consequences of practising their Indigenous way of life.

That’s why I think it’s very important, when you’re looking at the structure of a board, that you don’t just look at national organizations. They’re good organizations, but they aren’t always representative of everyone.

For example, I go to assemblies, and I know the chiefs; they’re friends. But when I talk to the government, I’m the one speaking. I know there are more than 26 other nations that are like me, that speak with their own voices. If these nations aren’t part of the group and aren’t represented, there will be no reconciliation.

[English]

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Grand chief, I just want to acknowledge the community of Whapmagoostui and through you say “hi” to my friend Losty Mamianskum. I had the opportunity to work with him on a historical trauma healing through ceremony a few years ago.

My question was all about composition and inclusivity, and I feel you will probably give us a written statement on that. Rather than waste the committee’s time, I’ll let other people ask questions.

Senator Hartling: Thank you. I want to say, first of all, I’m so delighted to see two women with such great leadership skills giving us great knowledge.

My question is for you, grand chief. Perhaps the commissioner also highlighted these issues, but I heard you say things such as “properly funded,” “representation that is inclusive” and “engagement.” Then you were talking about some issues we have heard in other committee work here such as poverty, water, housing and intimate partner violence. Those are all important, and there are still the unmarked graves.

In what ways can this national council help to address those issues and maybe highlight them? Do you see the council as being an important part of highlighting, bringing forward and helping to address these issues?

Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question. I do have to say, should this council move forward, they will probably be challenged with one of the hardest parts of their mandate because, unfortunately, right now, I see a gap growing between Canadians and Indigenous peoples based on different rhetoric, beliefs, things that have occurred and things that we see internationally. That gap is growing wider and wider.

This council will be so challenged. I think this council will have to break through a lot of perceptions about Indigenous people, the value of reconciling, and it will be very hard for them.

I was a representative for the Province of Quebec when the Pope came. I have seen in the past when the Pope came that people came out in numbers. They lined the streets; they waited all night. When this Pope came, I did not see that. I did not see crowds of people fighting to get in. I saw a lot of Indigenous people. I saw people lining up outside of the official events to see the Pope as he drove by.

That, to me, is a strong message that Canadians are not informed about reconciliation weeks. I think there is, for your average Canadian, a misunderstanding or a misperception that there is blame laid on them if they associate, that there is responsibility. I think that this work has the hard challenge of, first, breaking down those barriers and making your average Canadian understand why there has to be reconciliation, why there is value in that.

Once that can be broken and overcome, you will truly be able to encourage and uplift Indigenous peoples to come out of those areas. As long as that mindset or perception or lens is there on how Indigenous peoples are viewed, I don’t know if they will be able to come out of those situations, because it takes everybody around the table to understand what it means to bring one group out of the circumstances that they are in — circumstances that were created and put on them.

For me, I think if you truly want to ensure you’re enhancing the well-being of Indigenous peoples, everybody has to be on board. I would love to see a prime minister running a national campaign explaining why reconciliation is important to remove that legacy from this country. I would love to see more of it. I would love to see just your average Canadian learning and understanding in a classroom, although this history and legacy are very dark, why we have to do the work to change it and turn on the light for Indigenous peoples to come into these spaces.

Senator Hartling: I know you mentioned education. My good friend Senator Arnot talks a lot about education. Do you see that as a part of how this could help Canadians understand more about Indigenous people’s concerns?

Ms. Culbertson: Education is primarily the vehicle that, of course, will take us to another place. Understanding through different mechanisms of public education, through grade school, through elementary — that all has to happen.

When I was growing up, we had no education about residential schools. The education I had was just knowing that my family was in those schools, my mom went to that school, and I could be sent to that school anytime. That was my understanding and knowing of residential schools. I thought everybody went, as an example. So, no, everybody else that I went to school with in Saskatchewan in Pelly, Kamsack and Yorkton did not know about residential schools. They didn’t know about treaties.

Education is the primary vehicle that is going to take us to full reconciliation. It’s probably not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, but we still have to keep working at it.

I’ll definitely reiterate the representation and the lens that it is given through —

The Chair: Treaty commissioner, sorry to interrupt. If you could provide the rest of your answer in writing, that would be greatly appreciated. We have a list of senators still wanting to ask questions, and we are mindful of the time. We have a hard stop at eleven o’clock. Thank you for that.

Senator Greenwood: We have heard this morning and in other conversations about inclusivity. We all know how diverse Canada is or how diverse Indigenous peoples are across this country.

This is a question for both of you. I wondered whether you might have some advice around how we would be inclusive. What kind of structure would that take? I keep reaching back to my own traditions and I have some thoughts about that, but I would like to hear any advice you could give us that would include all people in the country. Maybe we could start with you, Grand Chief Gull-Masty.

Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. I will also respond to the question in writing because I know that time is short. I think that, for me, inclusivity does not only require the representation of national organizations and modern-day land claims. I believe it is essential for those individuals who are part of the residential school committees or groups across the country to be there.

I also think that groups such as the Native Women’s Association, the national Indigenous Youth Council — there are a lot of really great advocates whom I have met who are young Indigenous leaders. I think that their lens and their view would be important. I believe that having an Indigenous elders’ advisory body to be connected to the council is extremely important — having an elders’ advisory panel or a body to be mandated to sit as a permanent structure as part of the council.

I also have to say that I think that there is a little bit of extra work to be done in Quebec because of language. There has to be someone who is fluent in French and is able to speak to the Quebecois nation for them to understand what reconciliation means. I think that has been one of my challenges as a leader coming from a province that is primarily French-speaking. There is sometimes a challenge to connect with national bodies. We do have the AFN. I don’t know if the language capacities are there to get into those nations that do want to be part of the AFN or be represented by the AFN. I think that language is very important.

Senator Greenwood: Can I invite you in your written submission to reach back into Indigenous governance structures and how those structures have been inclusive of diversity? That might advise us on structure.

Ms. Culbertson: I’ll answer starting with the inclusivity question. It also ties into the language representation. We have the Indigenous Languages Commission, and I don’t see any reference to Indigenous languages in the current bill. Inclusivity would ensure that there are language speakers or active language learners in the composition of this board. It’s a good suggestion from the grand chief to have a permanent elders’ council but, again, one that would be rotating, and, of course, youth and two-spirit representation.

Senator McCallum: Thank you. Thank you both for your presentations.

[Indigenous language spoken]

I wanted to go to reconciliation. Resurgence is happening all across the country independent of this bill. We have moved further ahead in many areas. I see it. I see that the programs I attend — the conferences on residential schools and former students of residential schools — are Indigenous-led and successful.

When we look at this bill, do you think that we need this council? If so, why? Because if people are starting to understand and practise their Indigenous sovereignty within themselves, what would it be that the council would take on to complement that?

I’m concerned about the impact of the council on existing programs that are already in place, and those programs are already threatened yearly. Like with mental health, it’s like it’s not needed. We have to go to the ministers and say, of course, it will be needed for years and years. There is that kind of mentality. What role or what areas do you think this council could take?

Ms. Gull-Masty: [Indigenous language spoken]

Thank you for asking me the question. I think that the council is needed. The act of reconciliation is to call attention to and to bring — I’ll use the word “resolve” very lightly — between two groups, one that has been harmed by another.

Reconciliation is for Indigenous peoples, but it is also for Canadians. It is for them to understand the history of why reconciliation is needed. For me, I see the role of this council being to work in collaboration with those national groups, calling attention to why funding is needed, why their causes are important and acting as a body that will bring information, data and support and call attention at the parliamentary level and at the national level. For me, this council has a huge part to play not with Indigenous peoples, but with non-Indigenous peoples.

One of the things that I think we have seen consistently in the past couple of years is the discovery of unmarked graves. These children, although lost to us, are going to be the ones that bring solution for us.

[Indigenous language spoken]

These are the kids that are going to bring us out of this, understanding the loss of their lives and the impact of that on certain families.

In teaching our young children in school systems across Canada, we will see the delivery of reconciliation in the future. It will not be in our lifetime, but it will be in teaching our children to understand and respect the act of reconciliation that Canada will receive reconciliation in the future.

The Chair: Thank you for that, and thank you, Senator McCallum.

Senator Coyle: I have a question for Treaty Commissioner Culbertson. Thank you so much for your testimony and the work that you do. You’re leaders in the country, and we’re learning from you.

You’ve mentioned a number of things. You mentioned how this council could be one mechanism for addressing the huge gaps in communication that you see as problematic. You have also been clear — and I think I understood you correctly — as we have heard from others, that in no way should this council replace or interfere with other important new Indigenous rights mechanisms that are currently being developed. I think I understood that.

What I want to tease out is the status of this council. I want to make sure I understood what you said. Bill C-29 envisions the proposed national council for reconciliation being incorporated as a legal entity, independent from the Government of Canada under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, so it won’t be an agent of the Crown.

I thought I heard you actually see some positive aspects of this character for this council — that it could be non-political. Although you did mention that if it’s non-political, is it not still political if there are appointees from those political organizations. Could you talk a little bit about that concern if I heard that concern correctly? And also why you — if I understood you correctly — see the advantages to it being a non‑political organization or a not-for-profit organization?

Ms. Culbertson: The advantages to being a not-for-profit organization that is registered under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act is, of course, the independence of it, the neutrality that it can have and having a built-in mechanism of accountability.

When it comes to the political aspect, if you’re an appointee nominated from an organization — say there are four guaranteed nominations that would be from Indigenous organizations — it’s not like they are always putting out a call for applications. Sometimes there will be political lobbying within those organizations in order for individuals to be appointed.

As Senator Arnot knows, as he is a former treaty commissioner, it does get very political. I was just having a conversation with several of our chiefs about political interference in my position and how we see that happening. Even though in the end I’m appointed by the Governor General through an order-in-council, there is still that interference. There is intimidation, there is a whole gamut of things. It still very much is political. People will still be lobbying to have their names put forward.

But having said that, we do need this as a country. It shouldn’t overlap and take away from anything that is existing but only enhance and uplift those things that are already in place.

Senator Coyle: Thank you so much.

Senator McCallum: I wanted to go back to your comment on the data that you want with Call to Action 65, where the federal government is called to “establish a national research program with multi-year funding to advance understanding of reconciliation.” This is about decolonizing data. I’m wondering if asking for something like that would help with the data gathering and with it being done through specific eyes, through a different lens.

Ms. Gull-Masty: I believe heading down a path of a national data bank and having a public declaration of who submitted data is a good process to have accountability for data collection.

What was said by Commissioner Culbertson a while ago about what the implications are if you do not participate is something that has to be taken into consideration. I really support her point on that.

There are some groups who just don’t provide or present data. There has to be some kind of response to that because you cannot provide a service and not measure that service and not determine if that service is having an effective impact without having data attached to it.

If you do not wish to participate in that type of reporting, then there has to be a consideration on how you’re being funded. That’s how serious it has to be — that those groups who do not provide adequate data on how they are servicing individuals of Indigenous background should have an evaluation of where their funds are coming from. That was a really important point raised by Commissioner Culbertson.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Audette: Quickly, treaty commissioner, we say in French parrain; I guess in English that means “a sponsor.” I sponsored this bill, but just to make sure we have that capacity or a little bit of magic when we sponsor a bill, we don’t say yes. We make sure that we can add something. The Indigenous languages were important for many of us to make sure that it’s in the preamble but also that it transpires. If you have something to recommend on Indigenous languages, it’s very important that we have it, that it’s stronger or more evident.

Also, you can tell by my accent I live in a place where French was imposed, not my Innu language. We have as well people who do not speak English as their second or first language, so it’s important that they can participate. We didn’t say Quebec. Maybe it could also be an amendment.

I also believe this council — I don’t know if you see it — we live in the North, we are in our territories and communities. A lot of research is done where we live, but the result doesn’t stay, or the economic impact or the social-benefit impact and so on. Do you think this council could also have an important role to tell those Canadian organizations that fund research in Canada how we should do research with Indigenous people or how we should propose something to the national council on research?

Ms. Culbertson: Thank you. It would have a very important role in research because that is essentially collecting data. Doing it through that decolonial lens of having more Indigenous researchers, Indigenous methodologies and protocols, I believe that should be the foundation of any research and data collection that this body would undertake, especially with protocol — understanding ceremonies, having that complete lens.

I’ll go back again to the composition of the board. It needs to be more than just three or four guaranteed Indigenous representation spots. It should be at least 75%. We do need other Canadians on that board, but how do we know what lens they are looking at it through if we aren’t informing the lens that they are seeing things through? I believe research would be a paramount decolonial lens that needs to be applied there.

Ms. Gull-Masty: It’s a really good point. We are a nation that has also been victim to research groups coming in, studying, leaving with results and then presenting to external bodies as experts. At times, researchers have come in for a couple of weeks or a couple of months, and I don’t think that the validation process with the results is always carried out well. It is not indicative of ensuring that your representation of your results is truly in line with the views of the group you are studying — not representing, but studying. This has been common throughout Canada.

Universities have a huge role to play. I know that they were also given a mandate in the TRC. They are a body that needs to be part of this national council so they ensure they are following the measures for research as well in the work that they are carrying out.

The participation component is so important. Although it is necessary to ensure that there is representation for Indigenous peoples, I think the construct of the council has to be reflective of the two parties involved, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. So ensuring that there is equality between those groups is really important to me.

Other bodies, subcommittees or subgroups that report to or participate in the council should be Indigenous in their entirety, such as the elders’ council. That is really important. But because we are trying to address two groups coming together, I believe in 50-50 representation of that main board.

The Chair: Thank you. That brings us to the end of our panel. I apologize to our witnesses for being strict with time. I’m trying to be fair to everyone to be able to ask a question or two.

Thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)