THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 10, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study 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: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit people from across Turtle Island.
I’m Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I’m 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 which they come from.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Toronto.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Treaty 7, Alberta.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaq.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kwe, [Innu-Aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We have the pleasure of Senator McCallum joining us tonight as well.
Today we begin the committee study on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
I would like to remind everyone to keep your interventions as brief as possible. Due to time limitations and lots of interest, each senator will have five minutes total to ask a question and receive an answer from the witnesses. We will give priority to committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we will begin a second round.
In the first panel of witnesses, we have Denis Gros-Louis, Director General, First Nations Education Council; and Ian Mosby, Research collaborator, Yellowhead Institute. Thank you both for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer session. When it comes to the four-minute mark, I will hold up this sign that Andrea made for me just as a reminder that you have one minute left. With that being said, I’ll now invite Mr. Gros-Louis to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Denis Gros-Louis, Director General, First Nations Education Council: Kwe. Good evening. my name is Wahka;onwe Daziatsi, which means he who seeks freedom. I am a member of the Wendat nation near Quebec City. Wendake’ndare.
I am director general of the First Nations Education Council. The FNEC is an education association that brings together 8 of the 10 First Nations in Quebec. It’s an honour for me to be here to testify on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
First, I’d like to begin by quoting the honourable Murray Sinclair, former senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, who said: “Education got us into this mess and education will get us out of it.”
As your former colleague Mr. Sinclair said, much like residential schools did, the colonialist and assimilationist policies of the Canadian government deliberately and systematically prevented First Nations children from taking pride in their identity, language, culture and knowledge; in other words, from being themselves. Mr. Sinclair believes that education is also the invaluable tool needed to undertake efforts for truth, reconciliation, progress and even rebirth.
This is the direction in which the FNEC is working to ensure that our member nations can provide quality education connected to our traditions, languages and cultures. I also firmly believe that Bill C-29 is committed to building the bridge between truth and the future that Mr. Sinclair describes and that the FNEC is working on every day.
[English]
However, the First Nations Education Council, or FNEC, also believes that some provisions in this bill require modification. Given the objective of the organization I represent, I will focus on those pertaining to education.
Clause 16.1 requires the minister to provide an annual report on child welfare, education, health and criminal victimization of Indigenous people. Specifically, subclauses (b) and (c) expect the minister to disclose data on “a comparison of the educational and income attainments of Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons.” I will quote it again: “a comparison of the educational and income attainments of Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons.”
The FNEC commends these additions, which stem directly from Call to Action 55 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report. However, the FNEC wishes to share some concerns with respect to the ability of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to accurately report on education funding and national educational attainment rates of Indigenous students on and off reserve.
While the responsibility to collect data lies with Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, and not Crown-Indigenous Relations, the department has on multiple occasions acknowledged its inability to provide accurate measurements on, among others, graduation rates of First Nations students. The 2018 Auditor General’s audit of Indigenous services, for instance, concluded that ISC had been unable to collect and share meaningful information with First Nations as well as to ground its policy decisions on objective evidence. In the ISC report to Parliament of December 2022, the Minister of Indigenous Services recognized how “. . . a lack of data have created challenges for tracking socio-economic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada.”
On the other hand, the department is engaged in multiple processes with First Nations funding, design and control of education, including regional education agreements. Given the variety of existing arrangements for First Nations education, it’s difficult to understand how the department would collate national indicators on funding and graduation. The 22 Quebec First Nation members of the FNEC, for example, have signed a regional education agreement with the Government of Canada that includes data sovereignty and data collection on education and educators that are specific to our membership.
All in all, it remains unclear how the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations will be able to fulfill the responsibility to report annually on educational results and funding and whether the said information will be accurate and meaningful for the objectives of the national council for reconciliation.
The FNEC does believe amendments to section 16.1 are required, including direct involvement from First Nations like FNEC and First Nations organizations, in order to fulfill Call to Action 55 and to bridge the gap with our present and to forge a bright future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gros-Louis. I now invite Mr. Mosby to provide his opening remarks.
Ian Mosby, Research collaborator, Yellowhead Institute: I want to thank the chair and members of the committee for inviting me here today. I’m grateful to be joining you from the territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit.
I’m a settler and a history professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, and I have been invited here today because, for the past four years, I have been working with my colleague Dr. Eva Jewell, the research director at the Yellowhead Institute, to publish a series of reports whose goal has been to track Canada’s progress towards completing the 94 Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC.
The results, to put it mildly, have been extremely disappointing. When we started in 2019, for instance, we found that Canada had only completed eight Calls to Action in total, while in 2020, no new Calls to Action were completed at all. In 2021, more Calls to Action were completed in the three weeks following the discovery of unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School than in the previous three years in total. Following the completion of two Calls to Action by organizations representing archivists and museum professionals last year, we are now up to a grand total of 13 completed Calls to Action. To put this in perspective, our current rate of progress of just under two completed Calls to Action per year means that Canada is on track to complete all 94 in 2065, when my now-10-year-old son Oscar will be 52 years old. I think we can all agree that this is unacceptable.
My colleague and research partner, Dr. Eva Jewell, sends her regrets and wishes she could also join us this evening to speak about the bill and our research. While my comments today are my own, I know I can speak for both of us by expressing our strong support for the creation of a national council for reconciliation. Our hope has always been that a national body would be created that has the resources and legitimacy necessary to hold all levels of government to account. That said, I want to echo the remarks of my fellow witness Grand Chief Mandy Gull‑Masty in stressing that our support for a national council is very much conditional on whether or not it is properly funded, truly representative of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities and provided with sufficient access to the data and information it will need to fulfill this important mandate.
Given Canada’s lack of progress on completing the Calls to Action, there is legitimate cause for concern. I want to echo, for instance, what others have said in this committee regarding the fact that Bill C-29 doesn’t actually include a permanent funding mechanism for the national council. There has been little evidence put forward that the $125 million endowment that has been announced so far will be sufficient. Given that our analysis at the Yellowhead Institute has shown that inadequate funding is the key reason why Canada has failed to complete so many key Calls to Action — areas like health, child welfare, education and justice — this continues to be a major cause for concern.
We also have grave concerns about the fact that the council is being established as a non-profit organization, which in the future may become dependent upon charitable donations. As we ask Canadians in our most recent report, would we expect the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the Auditor General to rely on donations? The answer, I hope you would agree, is clearly no, and I want you to reflect on why accountability for Indigenous peoples is being treated so differently.
We also want to echo the critiques of the Indigenous organizations like the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK and the Métis National Council, or MNC, all of whom have raised serious concerns about the representativeness of the council, especially given that the federal government’s statutory authority is to appoint a full two thirds of the founding board of directors. This, we would argue, is very much in line with the paternalism that has characterized the federal government’s historical relationship with Indigenous peoples, and so we want to ask you: What guarantees do we have in the current legislation that this council will be truly representative of residential school survivors and their descendants?
Finally, we want to echo the point made by MNC President Cassidy Caron, who expressed concerns that the council would not have the legal authority to access critical data, particularly given its lack of subpoena powers. I would like to remind the committee that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission commissioners were forced to take the federal government to court on multiple occasions because Canada chose to withhold millions of documents from the commission’s researchers. Given that, more recently, Canada has proven unwilling to provide up‑to-date and meaningful data in areas like child welfare, education, health and justice — and I want to stress that these are asked for specifically in Calls to Action 2, 9, 19 and 30 — this is a matter of significant importance.
The success of a national council for reconciliation depends very much on what happens right now and on the decisions the Senate will make in the coming weeks and months.
I’m going to leave things here for now, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Yellowhead Institute today, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mosby. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses for coming today and testifying. I look forward to the discussion.
I also look forward to the creation of a national council for reconciliation because I think builds on hope. It will be charged with the responsibility of reporting on the implementation of reconciliation, which creates a lot of hope. I say that with this question in mind, and I want both witnesses to reflect on this.
In order to be successful, the mandate of this commission is very, very heavy. There are many, many components to it. But all of it is about research and data collection to get to that kind of ability to make those reports — collecting good data, disaggregated data and change data. Mr. Gros-Louis has already talked about the education component, but if you look at the mandate, it is child welfare, education, health and justice. How do you do that? How does the national council for reconciliation receive that data? Who collects it? How is it analyzed? It has to be collected in such a manner that it can be analyzed properly in order for this council to meet its large mandate.
The other component — and you’ve already talked about it — is the endowment. It’s $125 million. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is a lot of money. But at 2% per year — if that was the return on investment, and it might be larger — that’s $2.5 million. That’s not a lot of money given the heavy and responsible mandate that this commission will have.
I ask the witnesses to comment on that, please. Thank you.
Mr. Mosby: I would like to share my concerns. The idea that an organization, for instance, that will have 13 commissioners as well as their entire staff could run on $2 million a year I find not to be credible. There needs to be some kind of funding mechanism in the bill itself, which there currently is not. That’s something that the Yellowhead Institute would really like to see done.
Senator Arnot: One would think that the federal government has a big responsibility to answer that question.
Mr. Mosby: Yes.
Senator Arnot: The funding should come from the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that it’s a civil society organization.
Mr. Mosby: I would fully agree.
Mr. Gros-Louis: I would add that there is a difference between data and data management versus what you want as an outcome. If you really want to make a difference in data, joining the data outcomes with reconciliation, which is the objective of the legislation, there has to be some accountability and some teeth to the 13 commissioners’ capacity to bring the partners — which I would call government officials, government departments, agencies aligned with the specific needs of First Nations. We see that in Bill C-91 regarding First Nation languages, and we see it at the education level. The commissioner on languages doesn’t have that much capacity to interact with provinces and territories and bridge with the government on making sure that the path forward to support our youth in succeeding is built or entrenched into the legislation. I would advise that there be some capacity from the commissioners to commit the government and some of the deputies and the ministers to some kind of reporting and commitments.
Senator Arnot: You are saying compelling the federal government to produce evidence before the reconciliation commission and compelling data that they need to have to do their research.
Mr. Gros-Louis: If the outcome of the data brings Canada to reconcile. It takes two to tango. It means that the First Nations and the organizations are understanding the outcomes and the expected outcomes, and they think that it makes sense. Data could be cold, but it needs to bring the humanity of our realities into why you need that data to express where the gap is so that it bridges the two communities.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Mr. Gros-Louis, thank you very much for your testimony. You mentioned the term “data sovereignty.” I would like to get on the record the definition of “data sovereignty.” What does that mean to you, and how does that apply to this bill?
Mr. Gros-Louis: The First Nations Education Council signed an historic $1.1 billion education and regional agreement with Canada. It was designed on the real needs of our First Nation, and we were able to express every dollar that we needed to have good quality, equitable education with the province of Quebec. Canada didn’t have that capacity, so they relied on our expertise. To me, that was a gesture of reconciliation, to acknowledge our expertise.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
Mr. Mosby, it’s nice to meet you. I follow you on Twitter, and I know of your work. I appreciate the work the Yellowhead Institute does. In your research, have you and your group found ways to compel the provinces and territories to release data? Some of the data that’s required for this council or to meet the expectations of the Calls to Action are held outside of the federal government. Do you have any tips or tricks to help the committee with how to compel the provinces and territories for data?
Mr. Mosby: That is an excellent question. I am not a lawyer, and my ability to figure out how to manage federal and provincial jurisdiction is difficult. Perhaps adding in some statutory authority to this bill for data collection and the ability to, for instance, compel witnesses might be one way to get the provinces on board to provide data.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Do you also want to speak to “data sovereignty”? What does that mean? We used to have a First Nations data collections centre, which was closed in the previous government. What does “data sovereignty” mean to the Yellowhead Institute?
Mr. Mosby: I spoke about the Calls to Action 2, 9, 19 and 30. These are calling for basic data on the ways in which Indigenous peoples are treated within Canada. That is Indigenous peoples’ data. This is data that is required for creating programs and for developing legislation. The fact that those Calls to Action have gone incomplete eight years in — we’re approaching the June date when the Calls to Action were first released — is a major problem. We have argued at the Yellowhead Institute that without this data and without those data-based Calls to Action being complete, the rest of the Calls to Action are almost impossible because we can’t even get at the problem without this data.
Mr. Gros-Louis: To add to what Dr. Mosby said, just tell us in the legislation — probably in the preamble — the expected outcome that the data will provide to demonstrate that there has been reconciliation. Provide appropriate funding, and we’ll do that. It doesn’t have to be by the government. We now have some of the expertise in our organizations such as Yellowhead, FNEC or any other organization. Tell us what you want, and we’ll work together to provide that to you so it really confirms that we’re working together and bridging the gaps.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Are you saying that there is no way to know if we are bridging gaps in achievements for Indigenous people or decreasing over-representation if we don’t have good information to see where we’re at now and where we’re at in two years and where we’re at in six years? Am I summarizing that correctly?
Mr. Gros-Louis: A slight difference: we can complement the information, because we do gather the information on the ground, such as in education. We are managing our own education milieu. Therefore, tell us what you need, and we’ll tell you how the government can bridge that. Allow us to be a partner in the data gathering and the data analysis.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome to our witnesses.
I have had a lot of conversations in the last weeks about representation on the council, but I haven’t really had a conversation on this topic. At least two thirds of the directors must be Indigenous persons. You can both give your opinion on this. Do you think the Indigenous makeup of the council should be higher? Do you see benefit from the inclusion of non-Indigenous Canadians on the board?
Mr. Mosby: I do think it should be higher. There perhaps is benefit to settlers taking responsibility when it comes to reconciliation, but I think a third of the board would be too much, in my opinion.
Mr. Gros-Louis: It has to be clear in the preamble what the expectation is. Whether you have two thirds or all the board Indigenous, if they don’t have the teeth in the legislation to do their duty in the mandate that is expected, to really work on their reconciliation, the numbers are meaningless. It’s really about what your expectation is and the buy-in that you are going to get from the organizations. That will be the key success to this legislation, since there doesn’t seem to be enough money, in my opinion, that you’ll be able to gather. So use organizations, if you can fund it, and our expertise to complement your reconciliation path.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you to both of you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to Mr. Gros-Louis and Mr. Mosby.
Mr. Gros-Louis, I don’t believe I heard you speak about the character of the council itself and the fact that it’s proposed to be a non-profit structure. We’ve heard differing opinions on that. I’d be curious what your opinion is on that. The only amendment I heard you mention was related to data and including Indigenous educational organizations and others, for example, as sources of data in order to fulfill what needs to be fulfilled. If you have an answer around the character of the council itself, could you let me know?
Mr. Gros-Louis: Whether it’s an agency, Crown corporation or non-profit organization, to me, is not the important matter. It’s really about the mandate. It’s about what you want this organization to do that will also be supported by First Nations and Indigenous organizations to bridge the relationship. Whatever status it is, it doesn’t matter. The preamble and some of the sections — again, 16.1 was one of them — will truly give the teeth to build the relationship and force the organizations and the bureaucracy to really work in behaving in a reconciled way like we experienced with the signature of the First Nation education agreement in Quebec. That was an amazing example of reconciliation.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. That’s very helpful.
Mr. Mosby, you told us many things that you find lacking, although you support that we have a national council for reconciliation. There was the issue around inadequacy of funding and access to data. You have expressed a concern about the character being non-profit, and you have also spoken about the issue of representation. You’ve answered part of the question I had that Senator Sorensen asked, but I think you were getting at something beyond numbers in your point. I believe you were getting to the point of who’s appointing and perhaps other aspects. Could you speak to us both about what you think the process should be for constituting this council and also what you think the ideal council looks like? What would be the ideal process, involving whom? Of course, it’s hard to say what the ideal council would look like, but I’d like to hear you go a little deeper on that.
Mr. Mosby: Thank you. One thing I would like to say is it would be much better if we had the major Indigenous organizations who are to be appointing some of the first board members to be on board. This points to a structural problem with the way that this bill has been developed in that it has not been developed in collaboration with stakeholders. The important thing is the stakeholders when it comes to a national council. It’s really survivors. Cindy Blackstock has called the Calls to Action the survivors’ work plan for the country. When Dr. Jewell and I think about what an ideal council would look like, it would be a council developed by survivors themselves. It would be a council that is outside of these political debates. I can’t give you an exact makeup of what it would look like and what the Yellowhead Institute thinks it’s going to be, but fundamentally, this needs to be about the Calls to Action, which are the survivors’ work plan for the country. We need to see survivors and groups representing survivors playing a key role.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses today for being here.
I want to dig a little bit more into the whole question of this council and the appointment process. Obviously, concerns have been raised by multiple organizations about the composition and the process itself, which stipulates that the first board of directors will be selected by the minister in collaboration with the transitional committee appointed by the government. The question I have is as follows: Do you think the government should have less influence over the composition of the board of directors stated explicitly? Should this be handed over? Should they walk away from any role in this?
Mr. Gros-Louis: The First Nations Education Council —
Senator Moodie: If they should have a role, what role should they have?
Mr. Gros-Louis: We don’t have an opinion about that because the purpose is really where we need to ensure that the council will provide the appropriate capacity for reconciliation to really happen so that, at the end of the day, the youth, our youth in particular, will have a place to grow up strong and proud of our heritage. How it has been appointed is not really of our purview. It’s really about you putting in place legislation that will put that bridge together.
Mr. Mosby: I think what we need to see is that this initial board that is being appointed by whoever it’s being appointed is done based on real consultation with the groups representing survivors and that we see these organizations like the AFN, the ITK and the MNC actually wanting to take part. We’ve seen the ITK saying it might not even appoint a board member. We need to see significant changes to the way it’s being done. I can’t speak to what exactly that change could be, especially coming from me, a White settler man who — it shouldn’t be people like me deciding on what the makeup of this board looks like.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Kwe, Mr. Gros-Louis and Mr. Mosby.
In Canada, we have several levels of government where a citizen can choose who will be the mayor, premier and Prime Minister, or if not, another political space that person will fill, along with the values. They go together. I believe as an Innu woman, as former president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, yes, there are the organizations that you mentioned, stakeholders, but at the end of the day, why do we always have to go to the same organization when there are other amazing groups that do economic reconciliation and so on? Do you think if we keep going down that path, we might miss other amazing groups?
Mr. Gros-Louis, I’m very happy that you are participating in this committee. You have expertise on education and also a historical agreement or relationship for 22 communities on education. How would you see your involvement, accountability or relationship if we only go through, in this case, AFN? I don’t know how they will connect with you.
[Translation]
Mr. Gros-Louis: That’s an excellent question, Senator. [Indigenous language spoken]
I feel the important thing — and we experienced this with the Regional Education Agreement — is that there was a basic working rule founded on respect and recognition of expertise. Canada listened to the needs of youth and our organization to demonstrate that we were at a point of ownership.
This is what the council for reconciliation is expected to do in education across Canada. Yes, we’re lucky in Quebec, but the council must be able to lead the ministry to ensure that this expertise and its funding are legal and equitable everywhere. That’s what I would expect from a strong council.
[Indigenous language spoken]
[English]
Mr. Mosby: I think it’s reasonable. There should be a council that’s made up of a broad group of people. In fact, because one of the main goals of this council will be to hold Canada accountable, it would be wonderful to see individuals in areas like justice, health care or child welfare who have been doing this fight to hold Canada accountable to be the people appointed to this board. That’s really important. But if we have the minister appointing the board members, what are the chances that those individuals who have been doing this heavy lifting of holding Canada accountable will be appointed?
At the Yellowhead Institute, we’d like to see this being a body with teeth, one that does this important work of accountability and that can be critical and independent. That’s really what we want to see. It’s less about having these individual organizations appointing board members; it’s more about having an effective organization. My fellow witness, Mr. Gros-Louis, has said this many times. Unless this is properly funded from the start, unless this legislation is done in the right way, it won’t matter who’s on the council.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses.
My first question is just a very simple one, and that is whether either of your organizations or as individuals you had participated in any of the consultations leading up to Bill C-29.
Mr. Gros-Louis: Thank you, Senator Martin.
I don’t have knowledge that we have been officially consulted, but I know we have been somehow consulted by having discussions with some offices. I don’t have exact data about that. We’re back to data.
Mr. Mosby: There are many members at the Yellowhead Institute, and I’m unsure, so I can’t answer that completely.
Senator Martin: I was asking because I was just looking up your organizations. I’m fairly new to this committee. It seems like you have a wealth of knowledge and you do some really good work that aligns with what this council is working towards.
Maybe I can just go to subclause 7(a). We talked about the purpose. It doesn’t matter what type of organization it ends up being. It’s really about what they’re going to do. The first item in 7(a) is to develop and implement a multi-year national action plan to advance its efforts for reconciliation. That alone could be quite an undertaking. This question is to either of you. Are there any barriers that might hinder the development of a national action plan? What would you like to see included in this action plan?
Mr. Gros-Louis: What I’d like to see included is utopia. I’d like to see all the premiers of all the provinces and territories with the national chief, with the ITK, with First Nation organizations all in one room around the table shaking hands and saying, “We are going to work together for the betterment of the future of our youth.” That would be amazing. How you put that into legislation to bring federal-provincial-territorial relationships with First Nations is huge. I don’t think you can put that into this legislation. However, bringing them all into one room and everybody signing on the dotted line next to the Governor General, that would be amazing because that means that this council will succeed.
Mr. Mosby: I would like to see an organization that has the capacity to create a multi-year plan and to be able to hire, for instance, the researchers and analysts necessary to do this. At the heart of this is ensuring from the start that it has sufficient funding. As I’ve said before, as it’s currently written, I do not see sufficient funding in this bill.
Mr. Gros-Louis: I would complement that the government has cut some funding on allowing our organization to develop our structure, so there will definitely be more than $2 million required just for education, and more than that going to health, which is quite big. I think we’ll need more.
Senator Martin: This clause has from (a) to (i), and that first item is a tall order. You described the utopia, but if somehow that kind of communication could be possible, and you paint a picture of something that would be ideal, if that could be achieved, how would we do that? Do you see yourselves being a part of that process?
Mr. Gros-Louis: Definitely education is key because it’s really building on the strength of the pride in being who we are and learning that the organizations, the governments, will give up their unilateral decision-making and provide the true capacity to develop our organization and sustain and fully assume our inherent rights. I think money, but enabling this council to pinpoint where the sore points are would be a great beginning.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you to the witnesses for a very interesting conversation.
You were both talking about the mandate, the partnerships and the willingness to work together. You said you wanted to do that, and you need teeth in the legislation and a framework because there’s a structural problem in ensuring the stakeholders are involved, especially the survivors. Then you had the problem with the NGO. I agree. I come from working at NGO, and that’s difficult because sometimes it’s undervalued.
Then we talk about funding. How would you write that into this bill? You can’t put dollars. Do we call it something else besides an NGO? How do we ensure the funding is there for the long term? It can definitely fail without the proper funding. I’m thinking about all the things you said. They are very important topics and issues. How would you define that with the funding and the type of organizational structure?
Mr. Gros-Louis: I appreciate that the Senate, to me, as the upper chamber, should have some capacity for enabling or forcing, to some extent, the government to put in place the long‑lasting funding of the organization, probably as an amendment, to commit to organizations such as the FNEC and other educational organizations — I can only speak about education — so that we will be equipped financially to do the data gathering that you need, but more than data gathering, to have the capacity to compel the outcomes of reconciliation.
As I said, the way that we negotiated was not a negotiation on the education agreement. We worked together towards an agreement. If it was good for education, why can’t it be good for health? When you put education next to health, welfare, or housing, at the end of the day, it would be a better life for our youth. I can only speak for education and our youth. Once you get that, our communities will grow, and everybody will benefit.
It’s just balancing the relationship. It’s not about Canada governing, deciding and making decisions. It’s about putting in the legislation this balance where First Nations will be able to say, “That doesn’t work. Can you guys fix it,” and to have the capacity, research and the teams to say it doesn’t work, and in some areas it could be fixed. I give the example of the language. With Bill 96 in Quebec, the First Nation language act, Bill C-91 didn’t help. The commissioner could help, the council could help, in bridging the gap without giving the funding, because you can’t give enough teeth so that the government has to fund it so the outcome of the legislation would work out.
Sorry, Dr. Mosby, I spoke long.
Mr. Mosby: No, don’t worry about it.
I don’t know the answer — not being a lawyer, again — of putting that into the specific legislation, but I am sure there are other arm’s-length organizations that the federal government has constituted through legislation that have secure and guaranteed funding. Given the importance of this organization, especially in the early years of its operation, that needs to be the primary focus. This is something that can’t just be left to chance.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations, and welcome to the Senate.
Because of the way euro-Canadians and some of our own people are taught by the dominant culture around them to think and behave in colonizing ways, and due to participation in European-based governmental, medical, legal and educational systems operating on Indigenous lands occupied by Canada, euro-Canadians and some of our own currently cannot be other than colonizers. The reason I bring that out is it’s a difficult conversation to have. I know about the colonizer because I was one of them for many years when I first graduated. It took me a long time to understand that I had to decolonize and look at our Indigenous ways of being. At the same time, we are more than colonizers. We are human beings. How can reconciliation work to address this within the board and in broader society? In returning what was taken away, how are you promoting Indigenous types of knowledge and ways of being, especially when they come into conflict with where we’re coming from?
Mr. Gros-Louis: Equity would be the answer for this one. As I said earlier, it’s been a great opportunity for the First Nation Education Council and 22 chiefs to sit down with Minister Hajdu last year and sign an agreement with inherent capacity to build our own language programs and to build our own ways of teaching in our schools. Land-based learning is now being provided by our communities for our communities with our youth. However, it’s not a reality elsewhere. The council for the subsection on education should compel the ISC to ask why they have been able to work. What are the good lessons learned? Why has it been successful with Quebec and other organizations and why is it not working elsewhere?
The council could then work on the capacity. You talked about an action plan. Education is a long-term journey. It took 120 years for Canada to try to destroy our nations, our ways of being, and we have been able to survive. Most of our languages are still safe, but we’re rebuilding. We are rehashing in many communities.
The council could play a big role to try to say to some departments and agencies that it worked there, and that’s the lessons learned. We talked about data gathering. These are the positive lessons learned, and they should be applied elsewhere, and then commit ministers and government. Hence, how could we find ways to fund properly? Education is the basis. We have got to do that, but you can’t do that if there is not proper housing or if there are too many in their houses. But anyways, you know the story there.
Mr. Mosby: Have the board be a self-determining organization. This is why the appointment of the first board of directors is so important to have a real representative body that can establish protocols based on Indigenous protocols. This is essential, and so this is why it’s so important that we get this right from the start.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. That exhausts our list for round one, and now we’ll go into round two.
Senator Coyle: You have both continued to give us great food for thought. Clearly, everybody wants to help set this council up for success, and success, obviously, in the eyes of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, first and foremost.
The key to setting it up for success is getting that first board of directors in place in the appropriate way with the right people on it and with the organization adequately resourced. By the way, I’m fully supportive of there being an endowment plus. I like the idea of an endowment. It’s something that can help an organization withstand different governments and things like that. I understand why that is there. I think it’s a healthy and helpful thing, but I’m hearing your point on the adequacy of funding and sustained adequate funding being built in as well.
In part of that setting it up for success, I’m looking at what the board must include, according to this current legislation that we have. A lot of us have heard from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Under the current legislation, we have a member being elected after having been nominated by the AFN, one by the ITK, one by the Métis National Council and one by the Native Women’s Association of Canada. We haven’t had the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples here yet giving their testimony, but many of us have met with them individually. They feel that they should be one of those in that same category as the other Indigenous organizations that I have mentioned. I don’t know if either of you have any advice or positions on that or whether it’s something you would comment on.
Mr. Gros-Louis: We don’t have any position at this point because the purpose of the association is to provide good service to our youth in our communities and making sure that there is a good relationship with neighbouring schools and working well with the provincial government on education and implementing an agreement that has been historically developed in a very reconciled way. We don’t have any positions about the needs of the Aboriginal Congress. Sorry.
Mr. Mosby: Similarly, the Yellowhead Institute does not have a specific position on that organization, but the importance of the board representing individuals who have been fighting for accountability for the completion of the Calls to Action being the fundamentally most important thing, more than the organizational representation.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Senator Audette: I will follow you now on Twitter, but I did follow you on your website. I would often go and get information there. If I were a politician in a province or somewhere else, sometimes I would check, “What do they say today?” At the end of the day, it’s because of what you say that I’m sure we want to do better or we want to change how we do things or honour what is reconciliation or how we define reconciliation. In your testimony, you say that it’s needed, and it’s important to know that you do that with your institution and say that it is very important to be in this legislation.
Also, your reports on your website are important so that we all understand, because you have announcements on a specific call for justice for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or a call to action for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and tick, and you’re done. Sometimes it can take months or years, and you show that in your reports on your website.
Mr. Mosby: Thank you.
I will say that for Dr. Eva Jewell and myself, one of our goals has always been to no longer have to write those reports and to have an organization that is doing this work but also has the resources and capacity to do it. This is why we’re strong supporters of the creation of the national council. It’s been a real struggle, and it’s been really difficult to write the reports and to gather the expertise, so the hope is for this organization to be a strong, well-funded and legitimate organization.
Working with the Calls to Action over the past seven years, we have seen the wisdom of the commissioners in the Calls to Action, and in particular, with these around the national council, this is a very good direction for Canada, and this is a much-needed organization.
Senator Audette: To conclude, always, Mr. Mosby and Mr. Gros-Louis, it’s also a place, I guess, that we can share good stuff within that council, right?
Mr. Mosby: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Gros-Louis: Absolutely. I’d like to finish with your example, Senator Audette. The regional agreement we just signed called for changing the reporting parameters with the Treasury Board. At first, the department said that it was the interlocutor and we finally managed to meet with the Treasury Board, which accepted — it gave in — our expertise and that we would change how we report results.
The definition of success was the First Nations’ definition of success, not Canada’s.
What I see with the Treasury Board is that the expert — if there even is an expert in education — needs to be at the table to observe these changes taking place in the relationship. They will be able to see that if it’s a good thing to change the way First Nations report, then it could be good for everyone. Then the Treasury Board might say, “Well, we could work that way because it’s a reconciliatory way to work together.”
Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
She is saying you are good.
Senator Coyle: He is.
The Chair: Thank you. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. If there is additional information you would like to send related to one of the questions asked today, I invite you to send it via a written brief to the attention of the clerk, Andrea Mugny, by next Wednesday.
Before we begin our second panel, I would like to remind everyone to keep your interventions as brief as possible. Due to time limitations, each senator will have five minutes in total to ask a question and receive an answer from the witnesses. As usual, we’ll give priority to committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we’ll also begin a second round.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses: from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Melissa Mbarki, Policy Analyst and Outreach Coordinator, Indigenous Affairs Program; and from Indigenous Disability Canada, Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer. Thank you both for joining us today.
Our witnesses will each provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Ms. Mbarki to give her opening remarks.
Melissa Mbarki, Policy Analyst and Outreach Coordinator, Indigenous Affairs Program, Macdonald-Laurier Institute: I would like to, first and foremost, thank you for allowing me to speak at the committee today.
I was raised on the Muskowekwan First Nation by my mushum, which means “grandpa,” and my kokum, which means “grandmother.” The residential school on my reserve was open from 1889 to 1997. This school was operational in my community for 108 years. Every person in my community is a survivor or a descendant of a survivor.
An appointed Indigenous organization won’t fully represent my community in north-central Saskatchewan. National talking circles will have limited impact, and many grassroots voices are left out of important dialogue and decision making.
I want to quickly touch on the importance of grassroots voices. My kokum spent her entire childhood in a residential school. She was five years old when she was forcefully taken, and she didn’t return to her family until she was 19 years old. She was abused and was aware of the abuse happening in them. She became a social worker and began her advocacy to get the residential school in my community closed or shut down. If one person had listened to her in the mid 1970s, it would have saved a couple of generations of children from attending the school. This is why grassroots voices are vital when it comes to reconciliation.
My kokum was also an advocate for education and employment. She found healing in having a career that allowed her to take care of her family. She became a social worker, and that was something she was always very proud of. “We are missing this in our community,” she would say. “We are missing jobs and the ability to take care of ourselves.”
I moved from the reserve when I was 17 because there were no jobs. If I stayed, I would have chosen a life of poverty and the hardship that comes with it. I would be living in an overcrowded home, a home with mould, and with water that may or may not be safe to drink. There is also an issue today of having a limited supply of water. My family receives a tank of water once a week. This is the reality for people on reserves.
Allowing Indigenous people to be heard in the reconciliation process is entirely why I’m in favour of Bill C-29. I am somewhat surprised that economic reconciliation isn’t a bigger conversation when the majority of the reserves have high rates of unemployment. Creating opportunities for people on reserve will change this conversation. We need to see tangible outcomes, and we need to see change.
I am quite surprised that I didn’t see more commentary on Indigenous involvement in large-scale resource projects. This can include pipelines, oil and gas, and mining for critical minerals. In today’s world, this is an important conversation when addressing climate change. We need to be investing in technology that will reduce emissions. We need to be scoping and partnering with industry to implement emission-reducing technology like carbon capture or geothermal.
I have worked in this industry for almost 15 years. Indigenous people have the traditional land-based knowledge to help us move forward. Those of us who have worked in the industry can bridge those gaps. Once again, where is our voice? I really do hope that when we look at big topics like climate change, all Indigenous voices are included.
Thank you for allowing me to speak today. With our combined voices, I know that we can change the despair that we see on reserves. Hiy hiy.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mbarki, for your opening remarks.
Now to Mr. Belanger.
Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenous Disability Canada: Simgiigyet, Sigidim hanuak, K’ubawilxsihxw. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak briefly today to Bill C-29, the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Esquimalt and Songhees peoples, from whose unceded territories I am presenting today, and to recognize the territories from where you and others are participating.
As noted, my name is Neil Belanger, and I a member of the Lax Se el Clan in the House of Nikate’en of the Gitxsan Nation. I am also the Chief Executive Officer of Indigenous Disability Canada and the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, a national Indigenous disability organization providing services for over 31 years.
Bill C-29, the act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, works towards satisfying the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, specifically Actions 53 through 56. However, as in most legislation passed in Canada, Bill C-29 overlooks the inclusion and recognition of Indigenous people with disabilities. This exclusion ignores their lived experience, their knowledge and the valuable voice and direction they would bring to reconciliation.
Often, this exclusion is rationalized by stating that Indigenous people with disabilities fall under some other category, some other catch-all descriptor, such as “vulnerable” or “diverse” or included by happenstance as, for example, under clause 12 of the proposed legislation, by being a member of one of the identified groups and who unfortunately also happens to be disabled.
In Canada, today, the rate of disability experienced by the general population is 22% while for Indigenous people, the rate is significantly higher at 35%. Indigenous people with disabilities experience poverty at a higher rate and experience anti-Indigenous racism and disability discrimination across all sectors. They are residential school survivors and family members of survivors. They live daily with the trauma and the damage caused by that system, all while continuing to experience assimilationist policies at all levels for being Indigenous and disabled.
Their voices in guiding reconciliation should not and cannot be overlooked and deserve a permanent seat at the table — voices like that of our organization’s board president, Mr. Stephen Lytton, a First Nations man who has lived his entire life with a disability. He is a residential school survivor who endured 16 years of abuse and trauma under that genocidal system. He and countless others have experience and knowledge as Indigenous people with disabilities that can bring perspectives and insights that are often overlooked or undervalued. Understanding this, it would be remiss if the national committee did not have a permanent representation designated under clause 12 to include Indigenous persons with disabilities.
I would additionally present that the inclusion of Indigenous persons with disabilities as permanent and defined representatives of the national council is required under the federal Accessible Canada Act, or the ACA. The ACA principles are stated as:
… laws, policies, programs, services and structures must take into account the disabilities of persons, the different ways that persons interact with their environments and the multiple and intersecting forms of marginalization and discrimination faced by persons;
Additionally, the ACA further states:
… persons with disabilities must be involved in the development and design of laws, policies, programs, services and structures …
The national council for reconciliation has the potential to advance reconciliation and the rights of Indigenous people across Canada, but not without the voice of Indigenous people with disabilities.
As this legislation moves forward, I would recommend for consideration the following amendments:
Under clause 10, “Nominations,” and this is to ensure representation from urban Indigenous people, to include a new subclause (e), “one director who may be elected after having been nominated by the Congress of Aboriginal People,” and, under clause 12, “Representativeness,” include subclause (1)(a.3) “Indigenous persons with disabilities” and subclause (1)(f.1), “Indigenous persons whose language learned is an Indigenous Sign Language, American Sign Language or Quebec Sign Language” or LSQ.
Thank you for your time, and I would look forward to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Belanger.
I should have mentioned earlier that I’ll be holding up a sign here when we get to the four-minute mark to let everyone know that their time is shortly coming to an end.
That being said, we will open the floor for questions.
Senator Arnot: I’ll be succinct here.
Ms. Mbarki, it’s nice to see someone coming before the committee here tonight from Muskowekwan First Nation in Saskatchewan, with such good articulated ideas. I like the idea of ensuring grassroots representation, which is one of your fundamental points, the other being economic reconciliation. I believe you’re right on point with that idea because poverty is at the core of a lot of the issues that Indigenous people in Canada face today.
I do have a question for Mr. Belanger. Mr. Belanger, looking at the mandate for the national council for reconciliation, do you believe there is adequate available data or metrics related to Indigenous persons with disabilities to measure rights-based reconciliation for the people you serve? I ask that in the context of these big issues of child welfare, education, health and justice, which are long-standing issues for Indigenous people, particularly Indigenous people with disabilities. I would really appreciate your advice on that.
Mr. Belanger: Do I believe there is enough data? I don’t believe there is enough data available. This should be part of the process of the council to ensure that the data is collected and that the council has access to it, to be able to move forward. But by no means do I think there is enough data.
Senator Arnot: Are you confident that the tools will be available in the national council for reconciliation to access that data in order for them to do the work they need to do?
Mr. Belanger: Am I confident? Well, certainly I’m no expert on the development of the national council for reconciliation, but I know that, with the funding that’s been committed and the scope of work that’s being expected, there may be significant difficulties in this regard without some sort of sustainability and adequacy plan and the ability for the council to do its work. That’s going to take significant investment. Without that and without sustainability, which I know the previous witnesses have spoken to, this runs the path of looking good on paper as opposed to fulfilling what the intention of the national council would be. It could be, I guess is my short answer, but other things must be in place.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you very much to our two witnesses.
Ms. Mbarki, thank you for your testimony. I am pretty much in line with Senator Arnot in that I agree that economic reconciliation and poverty are at the core of some of the issues that Indigenous people face. When I look at the makeup of the organization and the council, I look at clause 13(2) which says that the council must consult with people with a variety of experiences. None of that excludes economic reconciliation, but perhaps you’re asking us to include in the annual reporting of the minister that there be a section that is specifically around economic reconciliation. That’s my first question for you.
The second question is, how would you define or express that in this piece of legislation? It’s such a broad concept. It can include so many things. Can you help us with that a little bit?
Ms. Mbarki: Yes. I go back to the previous panellists and acquiring data. That’s been one of the major factors in determining on-reserve poverty as well as off-reserve poverty. The numbers just aren’t there. When you look at industry‑specific numbers, those numbers get more vague as you’re exploring or researching how many people are employed and how many aren’t employed.
There has to be a mechanism where we’re capturing this data in a respectful way. One of the issues I see is the trust factor. I work in an Indigenous policy program, and I outreach to a lot of these communities. What I’m seeing is that there is a lot of mistrust and not a whole lot of willingness to give your personal data. I see that everywhere. It’s on and off reserve. I think that will be a pretty big challenge because it’s a topic that’s come up several times. That needs to be explored and possibly looked at in further detail.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That’s great. We’re talking about employment statistics and trying to get accurate representation of that. We’re talking about on and off reserve, on settlement, off settlement, urban, rural, poverty rates and trying to find good data for that. Is there anything else? Those are two concrete additions that could be made to the data that is reported in the legislation.
Ms. Mbarki: No, I have nothing more to add. We just need to get this data. If we’re going to be accountable for this community, First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, we want to give them data and factual numbers if we were successful or not. We could be successful in some areas and not so much in others, and maybe that’s where our focus needs to be. We cannot get there until we have numbers, and those numbers are existent today but they don’t capture what is happening on a bigger scale, whether it be on or off reserve.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That’s awesome. I would say if we’re doing employment and poverty, it might be good to look at investment in industry and communities as well so that you have something to compare against.
Ms. Mbarki: Some industries do give us numbers and we can work with them, but it’s really company-specific. We need to make it broader where we could look at the province, for example, and see what the numbers look like in the Prairie provinces or even in Ontario, for example, but we don’t have that bridge yet, and that definitely needs to happen.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I apologize. I’m a researcher, so as you were talking, the little hamster in my brain was running around thinking about how to collect that data. I appreciate all of your feedback. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses this evening. For each of you, something you said really resonated with me, and I wanted to follow up on each of those comments.
Ms. Mbarki, like my colleagues, I also heard economic reconciliation being very important. My question to you is as follows: Should it be explicit in the bill? Are you recommending an amendment potentially in clause 12 as it lists the kinds of representation there should be? I know it was considered in the House and was defeated. I’m wondering whether it’s important enough to explicitly include representation of an expert or an organization that really focuses on economic reconciliation.
Ms. Mbarki: We definitely have to have a representative in terms of economics, jobs, employment and training. On my reserve, if I look at my reserve alone, our unemployment rate is 95%. The only jobs that are available are at the band office. We don’t have jobs, and the majority of the communities in my area and even in Saskatchewan — some of the Northern communities are a little bit better off than us because they’re involved in uranium and mining, but if you look at a community in southern Saskatchewan, there’s not a whole lot going on there. There’s some new work being done in terms of gas wells, but once again, we cannot measure the success as it sits. We have to look at this on a broader scale, and we need to have representation. We need to have numbers because poverty is one of the main issues of why we are here today and why our communities are struggling today. If we don’t address that and start keeping track of what’s working and what’s not, we’re never going to move ahead.
Senator Martin: Is there an organization or a representative that you can think of that would be in the best position to be part of the council?
Ms. Mbarki: The Indigenous Resource Network is one of the organizations that I came across in the last couple of years. They recently did a study where they interviewed almost 2,000 First Nations Indigenous people. They asked them what their support was for the resource sector. Now, they got some really good data. They made some really great connections out there in the Indigenous community. They’re primarily in the natural resource sector, but they could go into other industries like mining because a lot of these skills are transferable. That’s the one that I can think of right now where they’ve gone out and gotten these metrics to be able to report on. There are some others on a smaller scale where it’s community-specific. Those would have to be pieced together as best we can, but I would definitely say the Indigenous Resource Network.
Senator Martin: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Belanger, you mentioned an amendment to clause 10, and you thought the urban representation is quite important. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was included in an amendment in the House, and then it was subsequently defeated. I have met with representatives, and I think most of the senators around the table also met with them. They represent about 800,000 people, many who are off reserve and living in urban centres. Would you say the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples would be important to be included in this bill?
Mr. Belanger: I would. Our organization provides services in Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities for our members living with a disability. CAP provides services and support in the urban centres. I don’t quite understand why four of the five representative organizations would have an opportunity to appoint but not CAP. I don’t understand the background there. For us and the individuals and families that we serve, certainly the urban population is significant.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Again, more excellent food for thought. Thank you both.
Ms. Mbarki, the main points that I heard coming from you were about ensuring grassroots representation from the people who are living with the effects of the residential schools, whether direct survivors or descendants of survivors or those communities, so that this council is well grounded in the grassroots in every possible way. That’s what I heard from you.
I also heard the importance of economic reconciliation, because, quite frankly, as long as Indigenous people are living in poverty at entirely disproportionate rates to the rest of Canadians, there can be no true reconciliation, and poverty is at the root of some of those other disparities we’re talking about, such as child welfare, educational disparities, et cetera. I think we’re talking about a whole variety of ways of building in the importance of that concept of the economics. It is something we’ve heard was an intention. It wasn’t left out, but it just wasn’t explicit here. So thank you for that.
You also mentioned climate change. Right now we’re looking at environmental racism in the Senate of Canada. We know that Indigenous communities are experiencing the impacts of climate change to much greater effect than other Canadians are, and that’s only going to get worse.
I thank you for introducing these very important ideas and concepts. Did I miss anything in terms of your main points? I just want to make sure I’ve got them.
Ms. Mbarki: No, you definitely captured them really well.
Senator Coyle: Okay. Well, no, you captured them really well, and I guess I heard them. Thank you very much. I wanted to confirm that with you.
Mr. Belanger, congratulations on the work that your organization does. It’s absolutely vital. We’re talking here about the creation of a national council for reconciliation. Is there something that can be learned about the effectiveness of relationships that your organization has with other existing Indigenous organizations or other organizations that could help guide this new council to be a more successful entity once it’s set up?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you for the question, and thank you for your comments.
Well, I would hope so. We’d have to be asked to see what we could do, but for our organization, we work with partners, Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners, across Canada to ensure that the needs of the people and the families that we serve are addressed and also, more importantly, that their needs are known so that new policies and actions can be developed and put forward there. With the development of the national council, we would be more than happy to assist in that process, to provide our insight and our experience. How that would translate would be up to the direction of the council. I don’t know if that’s much of an answer for you, senator, but yes, of course.
Senator Coyle: I have one more minute, apparently. I just want to probe that a little bit. You’re a group that works with lots of partnerships. Are there elements of those partnerships that lead to a more successful and effective relationship for the people that you work with? Are there things that we could learn from that?
Mr. Belanger: As other witnesses have said, information and data sharing, information about some of the barriers, some of the areas that must be looked at for reconciliation, like economic development, all the social determinants of health. Often what is lacking from government is that grassroots knowledge. What is happening in the community? What is affecting membership at the community level? There’s that disconnect. When we work with government partners or other non-Indigenous organizations where we bring that knowledge, which is given to us by the people we serve, it helps them better understand and then helps us in our partnerships and future direction. It’s that information and data, but it’s that relationship that’s often lacking at provincial, federal and territorial levels of government with community.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you very much to the two witnesses.
I think I heard Gitxsan Nation, and what an honour. My son Eamon is part Gitxsan, so there’s relation across Canada between you and me, I guess.
Thank you for the work that you do, and thank you for the reminder that there are many people with gifts or realities that we sometimes don’t insert into bills, studies or legislation. That’s very important.
Ms. Mbarki, you mentioned data. I don’t know if you still live in your community. You don’t have to answer, but knowing that you mentioned your kokum and your mushum — the reserve came because of the Indian Act. We have a territory, and it’s beyond the reserve.
Going back to that, let’s say we want to organize something for our people because the unemployment numbers are so high, as you presented to us. You’re involved in politics, so data becomes important if you want to bring policy or things to your community. Do you think the Indigenous leadership could also use that data to improve the lives of their people? Yes, about government, what’s going well or not, but also as leaders in our communities, for example, if we want to put something together for well-being or safety. This council can be useful for research or data, et cetera. Do you think that would also be something important?
Ms. Mbarki: I definitely think so. In the spirit of reconciliation, we have to bring those relationships together not only with the federal government, but with the provinces as well, because if we’re looking at something like traditional territory, something that really wasn’t recognized in the past — and a lot of communities today have their traditional areas that they consider sacred land. That discussion needs to come in not just with the government but also with industry because they also need to know where these areas are. I think we really need to bridge the gap not only with the numbers but with the working relationships as well. This will only build stronger, healthier, more productive relationships. That’s what I hope this new council brings for us.
Senator Audette: If I want to go further, you mentioned industry. There’s the mining industry or the forestry industry. Often we are in the kitchen, in my nation as an example, or we clean the rooms for the fly-in/fly-out population. For that data, we could get a better picture that maybe we should invest in that kind of training to have more people with specific skills for those industries, and then we can be everywhere. Do you think that could also be an important place that would help the industry and Indigenous leadership to go places that normally we’re not asked or we don’t go?
Ms. Mbarki: I’ve actually seen quite a bit of success with a union in B.C. They’ve captured these numbers as best as they could in terms of who they were hiring and who they trained, who was trained for specific skills and who had different qualifications. What would happen is that they had this pool of people who were willing and available to work, and they utilized that data. They said, “Hey, there’s another project coming in this province; let’s see who would be interested.” These numbers would be very beneficial. We just have to figure out how we’re going to get them.
Senator Audette: Thank you to both of you.
Senator Hartling: I want to commend you, Ms. Mbarki. You’re going forward, and it sounds like your grandma must have been a great influence on you.
I just want to move to Mr. Belanger and talk about the disabilities. First of all, congratulations on your long-term organization. I think you said 34 years. That’s commendable for all that time. I know funding is always challenging for these organizations. I was struck when you said the number of Indigenous people with disabilities. I’d like to dig into that and think about how important it would be for them to have a voice on this new council.
Just talk about the disabilities, because one of the difficulties with disabilities, for sure, is that poverty, accessibility and all those things are prominent. Can you give me a history or overview of what some of the disabilities are? Do you have any sense of whether some are perhaps caused by the trauma that people experienced?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator, for the question. Certainly.
If we look at the Indigenous population of Canada, we can conservatively estimate that there are around 600,000 Indigenous people who live with a disability. That’s conservative.
We work with physical disabilities, mental illness, episodic disabilities, developmental learning disabilities, and absolutely, many of the individuals and families who we support are coming to us and accessing services because of their experience or their family’s experience dealing with the residential school system for generations. We have individuals and families who we work with specifically in that regard. As everyone knows, the residential schools have been devastating. For us, many of our clients are residential school survivors or family members of residential school survivors.
Senator Hartling: Are you saying that you think it would be really important for your organization’s voice to be on this council in order to bring some of these issues forward?
Mr. Belanger: Well, for our organization, again, we would serve as the leadership organization as they come together. I think we would bring a valuable place, but there are certainly other organizations that have experience as well.
Indigenous disability in Canada has always been a low priority, often by governments in our communities. Their voice is often not heard. We’ve seen different legislation, as I’ve noted. For example, I can talk about the Accessible Canada Act where First Nations communities are exempt from the act until 2026. That doesn’t help our members living with a disability. Or if we have legislation that comes through like medical assistance in dying that specifically targets persons with disabilities, those who are at the end of life and those who are not, without any engagement with Indigenous communities. All three of the reports on medical assistance in dying note that there has been no tangible engagement.
If we do not ensure that there is a voice of Indigenous people with disabilities on this council, we may see the same trends going forward. Because it’s not always a priority and because it hasn’t always been a priority, it has to be a priority here. If we’re going to advance reconciliation, their voices must be heard, and they deserve a permanent seat at this table.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much.
Senator Moodie: Welcome to the witnesses.
Welcome again, Mr. Belanger. I think we met at SOCI. It’s good to have you here. I want to direct my question to you. You’ve been talking a bit about representation. To your knowledge, was your organization or other organizations in your space able to participate in the development of Bill C-29? Were you able to raise any concerns about the bill during that process? If so, could you share those concerns with us?
Secondly, you mentioned representation on the council. Have you had the opportunity to share the fact that you think it is important that disabled Indigenous peoples are part of the council?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator, for the questions.
Unfortunately, no, we were never approached about participating in the development of the legislation. We have relationships with governments, and we put our concerns and priorities forward as we see and as informed by the people and the families who we serve. We have not been consulted or officially involved in the development of this legislation. This is the first opportunity that I’ve had to speak to it. When I saw that it was going to be coming to committee, I contacted the clerk and said we would like an opportunity to speak, if that became available.
But unfortunately, no. I think that sort of speaks to the lack of priority of Indigenous disability when it comes to developing legislation such as this and other legislation as well. We are often considered to be some other category or a catch-all, like I said in my remarks. That’s a problem that we need to fix, particularly when we have such a high rate of disability within the Indigenous sector.
Senator Moodie: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I have two questions as well. You might not have time.
Mr. Belanger, as an advocate and strong supporter of the disability community for over 30 years, you see the need to continuously educate society, including Parliament Hill, surrounding identity as a disability community as socially and politically constructed and how the complex identities emerge within the various interlocking systems of oppression. Your work has concentrated on the complex entanglements between interpersonal and intercollective experiences of gender, race, ethnicity and ability in place and how they relate to larger systems of power, oppression and social privilege. Because people who experience discrimination of racism and class are central to the creation of a better tomorrow, what are the significant issues that continue to not be addressed or acknowledged or the work that needs to be done in and with the disability community? And why is it critical that the disability community be represented to speak on their own behalf?
Ms. Mbarki, how do we continue to advance reconciliation to develop and maintain mutually respective relationships of first reconnecting to our own identities and collectives while simultaneously developing Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships? One of the key elements is the return to awareness that Indigenous lands have their own stories, relationships, responsibilities and laws, all of which have been practised by Indigenous people since time immemorial. Why is land back so critical and therefore needs to be considered? What should the process look like? Thank you.
Ms. Mbarki: I’ll go first. I believe your first question was for Neil.
Land back is really critical for Indigenous communities. I grew up with land-based teachings. I was out in the bush with my grandparents picking berries, picking medicines and looking for certain trees. This area spanned northern Saskatchewan as well as northern Alberta. These were the areas that we frequented for different plants and herbs. It’s really important that industry, as well as governments, acknowledge this. It’s really important to understand our relationship with the land and how we put the land back to the way it was when we first found it. I think that could be a guiding principle, especially with industry in their abandonment and reclamation work that they currently do. We could ensure that they’re putting the land back to the way they originally found it. I believe Indigenous people have a space in that.
It’s really important to acknowledge our worldviews and knowledge because they span hundreds of years. The knowledge that my grandfather handed down to me was handed down to him by his grandfather and so forth. It is very important in our teachings and knowledge that we provide people outside our community. I definitely think there’s a lot of work to do, but if we get the right partners and the right people to the table, we can do bigger and better things, and we can do it right the first time around without having to go back and redo something. I think the whole spirit of reconciliation is building those relationships and being able to meet everybody at some point to make decisions that work for everyone. Thank you.
Mr. Belanger: Senator, I will be quick. It’s always good to see you again.
In relation to your question of what areas? All areas. I’d like to say that there’s been significant advancement in relation to poverty, housing, employment and accessibility within the communities, but I can’t report that. We have so many barriers for Indigenous people with disabilities that have not been addressed and have just expanded. There are things in the work that potentially could have some relief there, but I would say all the determinants of health. We still have so much work to do.
Senator Coyle: I want to ask Mr. Belanger a few more questions, just to understand a little better. We definitely heard you that, unfortunately, Indigenous disability is always a low priority, not just with this particular bill we’re looking at here but in a whole variety of legislation and other things. The main thing I’m hearing from you is that the voices of Indigenous peoples with disabilities need to be heard and to figure out what’s the best way for those voices to be heard. I’m not sure what that looks like, but the point is that those voices have to be heard. Is that the main point that you are making?
Mr. Belanger: Certainly the voices have to be heard, but my main point is that there has to be a permanent representative on that council designated for Indigenous people with disabilities, because if we do not do that and go by happenstance or hope, then we can be assured that disabilities will still remain a low priority, not by intent of the committee but just because there are so many other priorities. Indigenous people need a voice at that table to make sure that the voices of Indigenous people with disabilities, residential school survivors with disabilities, their families, are heard and that they are making sure that their needs, as relates to disability, are known as well with provincial-federal-territorial governments and moving forward through reconciliation. If we do not have that permanent representation, I am fearful that disability will not be a priority.
Senator Coyle: What has your experience been with Indigenous organizations in terms of your interaction? You spoke about your interaction with governments, non-Indigenous governments, et cetera. What about with Indigenous organizations themselves? We know there is a different way of doing things and a different way of seeing things. Are there some examples that you could cite that would represent what you see as a healthy, respectful, inclusive relationship with Indigenous peoples with disabilities that are fully acknowledged and are fully embraced as part of the work of not Indigenous organizations that work specifically on disabilities but all the other things that Indigenous organizations work on?
Mr. Belanger: We have a great relationship with Indigenous organizations across Canada. We work with AFN, NWAC, CAP and the Métis National Council. We work with Indigenous First Nations communities all across B.C. across Canada. We do engagement there.
Senator Coyle: In terms of your voice actually being at the table. I’m trying to just understand that.
Mr. Belanger: We sit on the advisory committee for Crown corporations. We sit on advisory committees to ministers, to disability organizations, to Indigenous organizations, Aboriginal infant development programs, those types of things. We always bring that disability lens, and it’s always a reciprocal, beneficial relationship where we’re learning from them as well, and they are learning from us. We have many relationships in that regard with Indigenous and non-Indigenous entities where we bring the voice forward. For the most part, I would say there is this thirst to learn, but learning sometimes translates into action and sometimes it doesn’t.
Senator Coyle: We talked about the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as being one group that works with, perhaps, some of your members in urban areas. I imagine quite a number of the people that you serve are in urban areas. I haven’t heard any mention of the National Association of Friendship Centres and the importance of that group in terms of reconciliation and in terms of being in close contact with those urban Indigenous people in Canada. Could you speak to that?
Mr. Belanger: I think it would be a mistake not to involve them on some level. We have a strong partnership with friendship centres across British Columbia. We complement each other in the work that we do. We often will go there and learn from them, and they come and learn from us as well.
I think many Indigenous voices and Indigenous organizations can be involved, because they may have specific knowledge that we lack. We may have specific knowledge that they lack. It is only going to be beneficial.
Again, depending on the scope of the council, the 13 members and the support that they are going to have to bring in these organizations, to bring in these other groups and communities to help inform their work, to collect data, to collect information, it has the recipe for success. If it is limited, it is a recipe for failure. It all depends on some of the things the first panellists were saying about how it will be funded and ensure it’s funded adequately. Some of the items here, such as the multi-year national work plan, that’s a significant amount of work. If it’s $2 million you are working with, well, it’s a “looks good on paper” thing again. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered before we can go forward, but without exception, there are many Indigenous urban organizations within the community should be involved.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. I also remind our witnesses that if there is additional information you would like to send related to the questions asked today, I invite you to send it via written brief to the attention of the clerk, Andrea Mugny, by next Wednesday.
(The committee adjourned.)