THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 16, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:04 a.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 peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and provinces or territory.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, I’m Senator David Arnot from Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator Hartling: Good morning, I’m Senator Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Audette: [Indigenous language spoken] Michèle Audette, Quebec. [Indigenous language spoken]
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We have Senator Mary Jane McCallum joining us this morning as well. Welcome, Senator McCallum.
Today, we will continue 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 to other colleagues if time permits. If there is time, we will begin a second round.
I would now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. From the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, Bobby Cameron, Chief; from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Grand Chief Cathy Merrick; and from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Darlene Angeconeb, Representative on the S.A.F.E. Council.
Thank you all for joining us today. Each witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session. In an effort to be fair to all and work within the time limitations, once the four-minute mark is reached, I will hold up this sign to give you an idea that you have one minute left before your time is up.
I will now invite Chief Cameron to give his opening remarks.
Bobby Cameron, Chief, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations: Good morning to each and every one of you. We thank God our Creator for a beautiful day. [Indigenous language spoken]
I greet each and every one you, senators in the room, witnesses and everybody else. We thank God our Creator for a beautiful today. I would like to give a quick recognition to the witnesses that are here this morning. We thank them all — Cathy, Darlene, Cassidy and Anna Betty. The majority are women. There’s no comparison to the power of our women. Recently, we celebrated Mother’s Day internationally, so another Happy Mother’s Day on behalf of our federation and our families here in our region. I thank you all.
We’re having a very important discussion here to do with some of the recommendations coming from our perspective on how this reconciliation act is going to work — and how it will not work. To put it in a nutshell, senators and everyone in attendance, my comments are not going to take five minutes. To have inclusion, to have our knowledge keepers and our elders, those are the true experts in the area of language and culture. Each and every one of those individuals from our treaty regions — treaty territories — will help you and guide you to where it is that you want to go with this important topic. Each and every one of those knowledge keepers have been guided through thousands of years of oral teachings. You just can’t learn that in a classroom. What those knowledge keepers and elders know, you can’t learn in a classroom or university. It is absolutely crucial. It is vital.
I have some questions too. I don’t know how many individuals you are going to appoint to this reconciliation team, when it starts and whether it is a paid position. There are so many questions that we need to get answered as well.
My recommendation is that senators and others who are making the decisions take the advice and direction from our regions. One of my biggest recommendations is to include and appoint our knowledge keepers from different treaty territories and from the different language dialects across Canada. Those are the true experts who understand our language and culture and who have been around many decades. We thank each and every one of them for their kindness, patience and unconditional love. We hold our elders in high regard. Each time we lose one, it’s like losing a library; you lose their expertise, their company and their education like a library would provide. It’s all here.
Those are my remarks. Thank you for inviting me to share a few comments from our region here at the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. This is an important discussion. Let’s continue to move forward on this item. Really, again, I stress the importance of appointing our knowledge keepers, our elders and to really make it an equal board — an equal appointment where you have men and women represented. It’s important that we do that.
Thank you for listening to me. Those are my comments this morning. I look forward to hearing the other witnesses.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Cameron. I will now invite Grand Chief Merrick to give her opening remarks.
Cathy Merrick, Grand Chief, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good morning. I bring greetings to you from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, where 22% of the national Indigenous population is in Manitoba. This morning, I am here to speak to Bill C-29, which will enact a national council for reconciliation.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, supports actions that will ensure that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action are implemented, monitored and evaluated. However, we are disappointed with the approach that has been taken and call upon the federal government to do better.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Call to Action 53 called upon Parliament, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to enact legislation to establish a national council as an independent, national oversight body. The AMC is not a rights holder, but Parliament did not engage or collaborate with the AMC, and we are unaware of the federal government consulting or collaborating with First Nations in Manitoba.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has a number of concerns regarding this bill. For the purpose of this presentation, I will focus on AMC’s five main concerns, which I believe can be addressed through amendments to the bill.
The federal government is touting this council as being Indigenous-led. AMC takes issue with this statement, as the council cannot truly be led by Indigenous peoples when it is unilaterally established by an act of Parliament. The AMC believes that the council should have been developed by way of an agreement between Canada and First Nations governments. I strongly believe as well that our knowledge keepers and our elders are the teachers. They are the teachers of the language. They carry the history for generations on behalf of our people.
The terms this council seems to establish are pan-Indigenous in scope. The AMC continues to advocate for a distinctions-based approach that rightfully acknowledges the unique position of First Nations as treaty partners with the Crown and as the original inhabitants of the land that is now called Canada.
Regarding the composition of the board, AMC is concerned that the council is at risk of not reflecting the regional or diverse differences of First Nations. There is no requirement for a minimum number of First Nations directors, and there is no requirement for a First Nations director from Manitoba. Nor is there a requirement to reflect the diversity of First Nations in Manitoba, being Anishinaabe, the Dene and the Dakota people.
While the bill requires at least two thirds of the directors to be Indigenous persons, I would like to emphasize that there are no safeguards in this bill to ensure that individuals who have self‑identified as having Indigenous heritage but have no connection to a First Nation or Indigenous nation are not included in this requirement. The issue of self-identification continues to affect First Nations’ interests, and AMC would like assurances that only rights holders would be considered as directors for the purpose of clause 11 of the bill.
The AMC also takes issue with the fact that the council must table a report in Parliament each year, but is not required to table it with First Nations governments. That needs to be looked at to ensure that First Nations governments and First Nations have an opportunity to look at the document as well.
We are concerned that this council will not support the distinct interests of First Nations governments in Manitoba. For the council on reconciliation to be successful, it must reflect and recognize the distinct needs and requirements of First Nations in Manitoba and report to First Nations governments.
Those are the issues that we have brought back and are presenting to this committee. There are additional questions that we have. How important is land to reconciliation? How important is the nation-to-nation relationship to reconciliation? I will leave those questions with you.
I am so grateful that I was able to be here to speak on behalf of all our people on Turtle Island.
[Indigenous language spoken]
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Merrick. I will now invite Ms. Angeconeb to give her opening remarks.
Darlene Angeconeb, Representative on the S.A.F.E. Council, Nishnawbe Aski Nation: Good morning and greetings to all the members of the committee. I am happy to be appearing on behalf of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, also referred to as NAN, to share with you our perspectives on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
My name is Darlene Angeconeb, and I am from Lac Seul First Nation in northwestern Ontario. I am a survivor of the Pelican Lake Indian Residential School, which was located near Sioux Lookout, Ontario. I am a member of the NAN Survivors and Family Empowerment Council, or S.A.F.E. Council, and Chair of the Municipality of Sioux Lookout’s Truth and Reconciliation Committee.
Nishnawbe Aski Nation is a political advocacy organization representing 49 First Nations communities and encompasses a land mass that is two thirds of the province of Ontario. NAN represents the legitimate socio-economic and political aspirations of its members to all levels of government to allow self‑determination while establishing spiritual, cultural, social and economic independence.
NAN objectives include implementing advocacy and policy directives received from the NAN chiefs in assembly; advocating to improve the quality of life for the people in the areas of land, education, resources, health, governance and justice; improving the awareness and sustainability of traditions, culture and language of the people through unity and nationhood; developing and implementing policies that reflect the aspirations and betterment of the people; and developing strong partnerships with other organizations.
NAN takes the responsibility to advocate on behalf of its survivors seriously. During the Indian residential school era, there were seven institutions located within or near the NAN territory. They were operated by religious organizations funded by the federal government. Many First Nation children from our communities attended these schools as well as other schools in Ontario and Canada. The children who attended these institutions were forever changed by the devastating harms and abuses and the well-planned attacks on their identity, culture, language and family systems. Some children never made it home, and we remember them and the families they leave behind.
The Indian residential school legacy has left lasting direct and intergenerational trauma and effects on survivors, our people and our communities, which makes it difficult, especially for survivors, to support or believe in reconciliation efforts. When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada delivered the report in 2015, there was no oversight and accountability mechanism or process put in place to ensure the implementation of the 94 Calls to Action. As a result, there has been very slow progress by the federal government on the Calls to Action that would significantly improve the quality of life and living conditions for First Nations people from the NAN territory.
Regarding the national council for reconciliation and the board of directors, Nishnawbe Aski Nation views the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as a positive step towards advancing reconciliation efforts in Canada. The national council’s mandate to monitor and report on the progress, promote public awareness and engage with Indigenous communities aligns with many of NAN’s stated priorities.
However, NAN has concerns on how the national council for reconciliation is to be established. In the preamble of Bill C-29, it states, “Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need for the establishment of an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization . . . .” In order for the national council to be independent and non-political, the federal government, through the minister, should have no role in the selection of the first board of directors in clause 8 nor the representatives in clause 12 for the remaining board of directors. Joint selection implies the federal government will have influence in the appointment and work of the board of directors. In order for the national council to be an Indigenous-led organization, the representativeness of the national council’s board of directors in clause 12 should state, “shall include Indigenous people,” and “to the extent possible” should be removed if the board of directors is to be truly Indigenous-led.
If the national council is to be Indigenous-led, clause 11 implies the composition of the directors would not be fully composed of Indigenous people. NAN is advocating for representation of the national council.
If Minister Miller and Canada want to advance reconciliation with Indigenous people, then Indian residential school survivors must be heard, listened to and lead the process. There can be no reconciliation without justice for Indigenous peoples. Survivors of NAN territory have witnessed and experienced many injustices — the St. Anne’s residential school for one. There continues to be no justice for survivors. St. Anne’s operated from 1902 to 1976 under the Catholic Church and is one of the horrific Indian residential school institutions. Given this history, it is paramount that the national council is truly independent of government.
Thank you again for inviting Nishnawbe Aski Nation to provide oral submissions, and that is it. If you have any questions, you may ask. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Angeconeb.
We will open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. I’m going to make a couple of observations.
Thank you, Chief Cameron, for reminding everyone about the role that elders should play — certainly for the national council, but perhaps also for the work we’re doing here right now. I really appreciate that.
I’m hearing from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs that there is significant concern that there was not sufficient consultation in the makeup of this act and in the appointment of persons to sit on the board of directors. There needs to be a spot for the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Certainly, Manitoba needs to be recognized as having an important role to play on the council.
In addition, it seems that the process to create this act did not respect the treaty relationship in a modern context, and some of these things could be fatal flaws in the way this thing was done. Similarly from NAN, there are a lot of concerns about the actual makeup of the board of directors. NAN believes that the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations should not be involved in appointing those people, but that NAN should have a role and place.
Do any of the witnesses think that these are fatal flaws and that we should send this back to the House of Commons with a recommendation for further consultation before it moves forward? Or do you want us to move it forward with these concerns being noted and perhaps corrected? That’s my general question.
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, senator. I will take the first crack at it.
Here is a recommendation for yourself, Senator Arnot, and others: Have Grand Chief Cathy and Ms. Angeconeb take their position and recommendations back to their leaders and knowledge keepers to discuss them and bring forth a position. That’s what we have stated for several decades. Currently, leaders before me and many other leaders all say that the way to get the best solution is to have inclusion from our First Nation perspectives or knowledge keepers. That would probably be a good thing for you senators to do — to have those individuals take back their concerns and to really establish, as I said, a knowledge keepers’ council. How many will there be per region? Is it one per region or two per region? These are questions. Let’s say Darlene or Cathy or myself each say, “Here is a knowledge keeper from my region.”
To see a person on this particular topic being our voice and our representative, knowing that this individual has the trust and confidence of our region and our leadership, would definitely put some comfort level within us.
That’s my comment.
Ms. Merrick: Thank you, Chief Cameron, for your observation and recommendation. In terms of the presentation from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, it’s all about being included. This whole process should be led by our knowledge keepers and our elders. They are who give us guidance in terms of the work that we want to do in our respective regions. That is one of the recommendations as well.
I don’t want it to be put aside as notes; I want it to actually be included in discussions moving forward. Thank you, senator, for that question.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome to all of our witnesses. I appreciate all of your comments. I’m going to follow up a bit on Senator Arnot’s question and look for more feedback.
My understanding of where we’re at right now is the government has suggested in Bill C-29 that there will be 9 to 13 members on this council. They have guaranteed four seats. The rest will be determined somehow — we’re not clear. I guess I’m generically asking all of you if you would comment a little bit further.
First of all, to this group, do you believe the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, represents your members generically? Chief Cameron started to go down the road of maybe what could be done instead, but I guess I’m looking to understand the most efficient way to fix the flaws. When I hear comments like, “Get representation from each region,” pardon my ignorance, I don’t know how many regions that would be. How many Indigenous leaders and knowledge keepers would need to come together across this nation to try and sort through the flaws we’re at today?
In addition, do you believe there is a place for non-Indigenous people on the council? Sorry, really high-level question, but I’ll try and get each of you to make a comment. Grand chief, do you want to come in?
Ms. Merrick: Which grand chief?
Senator Sorensen: Sorry, Grand Chief Merrick.
Ms. Merrick: I strongly believe in the terms of reconciliation. Reconciliation is something that is so broad, from actually reaching out to the young people in terms of their history. This should be Indigenous-led. I strongly believe that our people should take the lead in terms of doing this work. Again, I will go back to our knowledge keepers and our elders. They are our teachers. They are the ones who instill that history within our beings as to how we move forward. I’m very strong in terms of that, and I’m very strong in terms of speaking to the land for reconciliation. This is a nation-to-nation relationship. It’s between Indigenous people and the representatives of the Crown. I strongly believe that it should be Indigenous-led and it should comprise Indigenous First Nations people.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. Ms. Angeconeb, do you have a comment? Maybe Chief Cameron?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you for the question. To fix the flaws, again, you’d have to have Cathy, Darlene and others take back to their councils and their leadership, obviously their knowledge keepers’ councils, to seek more input and a final recommendation. You said 9 to 13. Are four members being appointed from the federal government?
Senator Sorensen: My understanding is that four seats — please correct me if I’m incorrect — have been guaranteed, one to the AFN, one to the Métis Nation of Ontario, or MNO, one to the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, and one to the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC. Those four groups have been guaranteed a seat on the council, with the rest, somewhere between 9 and 13 people — again, correct me if I’m wrong — sorry, they’ve been appointed. Anyway, that the rest are to be appointed in some other manner, which is to be determined.
Mr. Cameron: To fix the flaws, take it back to the regions. The other question was something about the AFN. We’re always united as First Nations people. It’s our inherent treaty rights that bind us. I’d say that much.
To go further on the other item, we would really implement each region. The knowledge keepers, those nine individuals, whoever they’re going to be, First Nations must have full involvement in appointing these nine individuals. They have to be knowledge keepers.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you, chief. I’m sure other questions will come forward that will cause us to elaborate further.
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Cameron.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for your very helpful and thoughtful testimony today. I’m still digesting it and now redigesting the answers to the questions that have preceded mine.
I do want to get to the point that each of you have made, which is the role of elders and knowledge keepers, as well as — and I’m assuming there’s a fairly significant overlap — survivors of residential schools. We’ve heard from each of you about the importance of those people, recognizing that many elders are the knowledge keepers and many knowledge keepers are the survivors of residential schools.
I would love to hear from probably Chief Cameron to begin with, but then anybody else who would like to weigh in on this. What specifically do you see those roles being? There are a whole number of stages and places for the input from those groups. I’m imagining there being multiple places where you see them having input in order to have the best effect here.
As the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, should we be directly consulting with those people at this stage? Should those people be consulted by those four groups that we know are going to be appointing people to the national council board? Should there be a separate entity of a council to the council, if you know what I mean, of knowledge keepers? I’d like to understand where you see the points of entry being the most powerful and important for the knowledge keepers, elders and survivors.
Mr. Cameron: Thank you for the question. The importance of the knowledge keepers is that they take on a vast array of expertise and knowledge in different sectors. Everything is bound by the umbrella of our inherent treaty rights. Every sector falls under the umbrella of our inherent treaty rights. Language and culture. The list goes on about the expertise and knowledge that our knowledge keepers have in their brains and in their hearts. As I said earlier, you can’t teach or learn that in a classroom. You have to live it. You have to breathe it. In most cases, those who pass away, they die by it because they believe in it.
I’ll give you a quick example of the importance of utilizing knowledge keepers. I’ll use the example of the role of the Governor General of Canada, how it’s not honouring or fulfilling its role of treaty obligations to our people. Here is where our knowledge keepers would help guide and educate all those who don’t understand the role of the Governor General in terms of the treaty relationship.
That is a Crown representative for First Nations people with the British Crown. It’s our understanding that King Charles is going to be coming to Canada in the next couple of years. Everyone is lobbying to do their best to get an audience with him to make him understand the historic importance of inherent treaty rights, which are of international law.
This is what we’ve been expressing and what our knowledge keepers have been saying, that the role of the Governor General is to come meet our people on our treaty lands to discuss, implement and move forward in a positive way to promote inherent treaty rights. That’s just one example.
Thank you for the question.
Senator Coyle: I do not in any way disagree, and completely appreciate the importance of knowledge keepers, elders and survivors. I’m trying to get to, in the process we’re in right now, what the roles and entry points are, et cetera, that you see as important to include — that inclusion point that’s been mentioned. Would anyone like to weigh in?
Ms. Merrick: I’ll share some history and some of the issues in our relationship to the Crown. When First Nations agreed to share their lands with the Crown and settlers, they placed their trust in the Queen Mother at the time to fulfill the treaty promises that First Nations would receive and return.
We come to this point in time in terms of reconciliation with our people, and we truly believe that we need to ensure that with anything moving forward, we talk about that treaty relationship that we had with the Crown because it seems to be forgotten by the governments, the importance of that treaty. That was one of the things that our elders have always relayed: to maintain the treaty relationship.
I’m very happy to hear that the King is looking to come to Canada. I went to London, England, for his coronation to be able to see and relay that we do have that relationship, and that treaty is very important to our people in Canada. I share that with you.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
I’m more worried that we’re losing our way here on this council, that we are not reading carefully. I have to say that, for me, Calls to Action 53 through 56 were incredibly powerful and incredibly thoughtful. That it was a commission that would deal in facts and put those forward for those who need to be brought to account for progress, and that it would conduct public education and deep policy research, but also this idea of being a sentinel for progress in the future so that the horrible mistakes of the past don’t get repeated in some fashion.
I had the privilege of knowing and serving with one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission commissioners, Senator Sinclair. I have every faith that the Calls to Action were, in fact, deeply thought out and that it wasn’t just words without him and the others thinking about what the potential ramifications of the words were.
I want to hear what you think about when we can’t agree on something, that we go back and read what was actually recommended, and that we take that for the value that’s there, in the spirit it was brought and that we think of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the ultimate consultation.
I want to read the words here because we spent a lot of time talking about and wrestling with this whole appointment and who gets on this board, et cetera. I think there are certain skills that must be on this board or it will descend into something that isn’t effective. To me, the monitoring, developing data and forcing people to report against that information relative to the progress of Indigenous people is so critically important.
Call to Action 53 says:
The legislation would establish the council as an independent, national, oversight body with membership jointly appointed by the Government of Canada and national Aboriginal organizations, and consisting of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members.
Could you tell me if that sentence is not sufficiently clear that we could find our way to populating this board?
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for the question and the comment.
Obviously, to have inclusion from different perspectives, different visionaries and different mindsets on the goal on this particular topic, to have non-First Nations people appointed to this board, we’ll call it, or committee, it’s important because we need different aspects and different input where someone may not see or catch a certain item. To have inclusion is definitely important, but, again, we state that we work together to make sure that this is done properly, obviously.
The Aboriginal organizations that are appointing each individual know that the input and the recommendation would still be our knowledge keepers, obviously, because they’re the true experts, Senator Tannas. We acknowledge each and every one of them.
Thank you for the question.
Ms. Merrick: Thank you for your question, senator. I realize that a lot of times, in terms of our voices, we have to ensure that our national organizations speak, but sometimes they don’t speak to what we want to say. We’re very grateful that they’re there and for that whole process. Yes, definitely so.
There was a lot of good work that went into the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process. The people who were appointed at that time — I can only speak for my senator at the time that he did awesome work. I will always acknowledge that in his participation.
We have to speak strongly in terms of the elders and the knowledge keepers that should be participating in this process. We also need to ensure that the people who do participate in these processes know about who we are as treaty people and how our ties are with the land, how respectful we are for the water. People have to ensure that these are the ultimate discussions and gifts that they will have to take with them when they move forward in the time of speaking to the issues.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Grand Chief.
Senator Audette: [Indigenous language spoken] Thank you very much for your comments, concerns and recommendations.
We know that in this bill, the hope is to make sure we also have Indigenous knowledge keepers. It’s the second bullet, I would say, when we look at what the board would be and who would represent this circle of people. Of course, we need people with the knowledge and background or survivors.
I’m also thinking — I don’t know if you remember — that at the Assembly of First Nations, at every meeting of chiefs or at every assembly, we had Mr. Georges Erasmus coming and reporting to the chief and assembly about the follow-up, I would say, on the foundation.
Is it something you would like to see in this legislation, to be sure there are also annual or biannual reports to the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations and to make sure the reports also get to you? We have to find other ways for reporting to get to the chiefs and the communities across Canada, but would you see the same approach?
Any of the grand chiefs can answer.
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Senator Audette, for the question and comment.
Certainly, communication is a big component here moving forward. Getting annual or biannual reports is definitely important because you — everybody in the room and on the line, senators — know as well as I do that things change. I’ll even compare it to raising our own children. We do our best, and we give them all those important tools and skills to manœuvre through life and through school. Then, sometimes during maybe elementary school or even high school, we have to have a little sit-down with them to remind them of the values, the teachings and the skills to succeed in life, in school and then on to university, adulthood and into the kokum and mosum stage.
So definitely, Senator Audette, things will probably be changed along the way, and having annual reports will be helpful in seeing where we can make changes along the way to improve and be stronger as we move along on this journey together.
Senator McCallum: [Indigenous language spoken] Having this conversation is an act of reconciliation itself.
I wanted to go back to the Grand Chief’s comment on how children were forever changed — identity and culture. Reconciliation is a living act that we are undergoing and that I undergo every day because it triggers something in me. It is not a simple process.
I think the most sacred part came up with the elders — about the knowledge keepers. One of the researchers says that self‑empowerment of Indigenous peoples is through individual and collective cultural practices, which are happening today. Leanne Simpson rightly says that we don’t need permission, right political climates or funding. Rather, she says, “We need our Elders, our languages, and our lands, along with vision, intent, commitment, community, and ultimately, action.” Another scholar emphasizes that Indigenous sovereignty and nationhood are derived from the land and from the Creator based on spiritual and natural laws rather than self-governments and laws. Living in Indigenous sovereignty sets an important and critical frame for decolonial action.
So we have two groups that are thinking differently, and we’re trying to put all this in this huge, momentous undertaking that is occurring at many levels and in many different areas.
Do you think there are certain areas that should be left out and negotiated differently? Because we’re going to continue to keep having these questions answered, and I’m talking about the resurgence that is occurring already with people taking back their culture and moving ahead. We have to do that at the individual and collective levels. Do you think that with this bill, there should be certain parts that are kept sacred and negotiated differently? Because a lot of this is that we have to negotiate with the non-Indigenous people. That’s going to be part of reconciliation as well.
It’s all over the place, and it’s mind-boggling to me. So your guidance there would be good. If there’s no time, then there can be a submission. Kinanâskomitin.
Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Senator McCallum. That’s why it’s so important that we have knowledge keepers be part of this journey. There are certain protocols and certain sacred topics that must be abided by. I talk about the protocols because they’re the individuals. Those knowledge keepers will decide if we can discuss or leave certain topics out. I’m not quite 50, but I certainly don’t want to say we shouldn’t talk about this or we should leave this topic out. That’s up to the knowledge keepers to decide and to give us recommendations.
Ms. Merrick: I do have an addition to my submission in terms of some of the questions that are being asked. In terms of the process moving forward, all I can say is that we be able to rely on our Creator and on our elders who are going to show us and lead us, and that we be able to speak about our lands, the healing we’re going through and the nation-to-nation relationship that we have in terms of reconciliation. It all goes back to the Indian residential school. These whole processes that are in place are to ensure that we are heard. This is such a big step, and it’s such a big undertaking.
All I can leave you with is that we be able to remember the relationship we have in terms of treaty with the Crown. When it comes to our First Nation people, we need to do it better. We need to be able to work through these processes. We need to remember that we are resilient and that we come here to the table to be able to speak and guide this whole process as well.
As the Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, who are 22% of the national Indigenous population, it’s huge. So we need to be able to talk about reconciliation and what it means to all of us to better understand it.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief, for that.
We’re going to go to Senator Greenwood for our last question, and she would just like to have you provide an answer in writing because we’re out of time.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you, witnesses, for being with us here today. It’s been really interesting listening to your responses.
I really took to heart the comments around treaty rights and around diversity and inclusion. I, too, think those are absolutely fundamental — as well as, of course, the wisdom of our knowledge keepers — in guiding us through these sorts of realities.
I wondered if you might respond to me. You may not have something specific, but even considerations would be great. How would you structure the council or a body — I’m not sure what the right word would be — that would be inclusive and representative of the kinds of things that you’ve raised with us today? I think that is the challenge in front of us.
What would that structure look like? How could we do that collectively and together?
If you could respond in writing, that would be extraordinarily helpful to us. Thank you.
The Chair: If you could provide a response in writing to the clerk of the committee before Friday, that would be greatly appreciated.
The time for this panel is now complete, and I wish to again thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We really appreciate your testimony.
Senator Arnot: Witnesses, I would like a reply in writing to this question: If you look at the Call to Action 53, this Parliament — in other words an act — should be “. . . in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples . . . .”
The Government of Canada wants us to pass this act before the end of June in its current form. Do you think it’s moving too fast? Do you think you would like more input into true consultation and collaboration so that we get this right or do you want us to go ahead and just pass it in whatever form it is? In other words, what has to be done to make this correct because I don’t want to be part of something that is rushed and not respecting the treaty rights and the treaty relationship.
It’s really that simple: Do you want us to move ahead or should we slow this down and make sure that your issues are dealt with before the act gets passed?
That is my question. Thank you.
The Chair: Again, if you could provide your answers in writing, that would be greatly appreciated, and I would invite you to do so through a written brief sent to the clerk before next Tuesday.
I would now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. From the Assembly of First Nations, Deputy Grand Chief, Anna Betty Achneepineskum; from the Métis National Council, President Cassidy Caron; and from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, President Natan Obed and Director of Legal Services, Will David.
Thank you all for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session by the senators.
To be fair to all and to work within the time limitations, once the four-minute mark is reached, I will hold up this lovely looking sign with one minute left, and I would ask you to please be mindful of the time.
I now invite Deputy Grand Chief Achneepineskum to give her opening remarks.
Anna Betty Achneepineskum, Deputy Grand Chief, Assembly of First Nations: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good morning. My name is Anna Betty Achneepineskum, and I am here as a representative for the Assembly of First Nations. I’m very grateful and honoured that I have this opportunity to address the Senate and that I have been asked by the AFN to speak and to present.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the Creator, our ancestors and all the survivors of the Indian residential institutions that were in effect in Canada beginning in the mid-1800s to the 1980s.
I’m a representative of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation as well in terms of my role as the Deputy Grand Chief, but today I am here to speak on behalf of the survivors from all across this country.
In the past, National Chief Archibald has presented her concerns to the minister regarding this legislation, and in those comments and submissions that she made, there were three areas of concern that I would like to highlight: the nomination process, the representation and also the funding.
I am reminded by my advisers that we cannot have reconciliation until we have a voice at these tables.
There was very little consultation on this particular legislation, and we have taken the position that we do not agree with the nomination process of Minister Miller, in terms of his appointments.
Prior to 10 a.m., I listened to my colleagues who spoke to the Senate, and I affirm and amplify the comments that they made that it should be the survivors and the knowledge keepers who have the authority and the power to be the representatives of this committee, and that in order for them to provide the oversight and monitor the implementation, they must be funded adequately to ensure that they can do that.
I also agree that the representatives must be from different regions from Canada and that they be either survivors or individuals who are appointed by the survivors.
I have pages of written submissions, and I will be presenting that to the Senate. I thank you very much for your time. Meegwetch. Kinanâskomitin.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy Grand Chief Achneepineskum. We will now go to Cassidy Caron to provide opening remarks.
Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council: Good morning, everyone. Tansi. My name is Cassidy Caron. I am President of the Métis National Council, and I want to thank you for all for having me here today.
I am the President of the Métis National Council, which is the recognized national and international representative of the Métis Nation in Canada since 1983. The Métis National Council is comprised of and receives its mandate from democratically elected leadership within the provincial Métis governments currently within the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Our Métis governments, through their registries and democratically elected governance structures at the local, regional and provincial levels, are mandated and authorized to represent Métis Nation citizens within their respective jurisdictions, including dealing with collectively held Métis rights, interests and outstanding claims against the Crown.
Since 1983, the Métis National Council’s priority has always been — and will remain — Métis citizens, and we will continue advancing issues of collective importance and serving the Métis Nation as our original founders intended.
Again, I want to thank you for having me here today to speak on behalf of the Métis National Council’s position on Bill C-29. Through our reading of the legislation and in conversation with other national Indigenous organization leadership, MPs on the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee and senators who currently have the bill, we do have some concerns with Bill C-29 in its current form.
Prior to the bill being tabled in June 2022 to satisfy Calls to Action 53 to 56 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, or TRC, there were no formal consultations with national Indigenous organizations or other Indigenous governments or bodies.
This legislation outlines a significant mandate for the council, which was intended in those Calls to Action, but as it is right now, it has none of the authority that would actually provide for it to be strong enough to be an effective tool for an accountability mechanism for this country’s reconciliation work.
Without strong authority to serve as an accountability mechanism, the bill simply provides for the creation of another not-for-profit organization with a reconciliation mandate that provides an option for governments to use rather than speaking directly with the Métis Nation and its rightful representatives.
The creation of this body may present the government, current or future, with an option to pick and choose the voices they will listen to with regard to how it does work on reconciliation, potentially confusing the reconciliation agenda or subverting the voices of the Métis Nation’s distinct priorities and experiences. Specifically as it relates to reconciliation, the Government of Canada has a history of choosing to consult with advisory bodies that have no connection or accountability to the Métis Nation. A legislative body, such as the one proposed in Bill C-29, may have further influence over the government, potentially creating an option to not meaningfully engage with the Métis Nation and its democratically elected representatives on anything understood to have a reconciliation theme or mandate.
Furthermore, Bill C-29 does not apply a distinctions-based approach. In all the work we do, we advocate to ensure a distinctions-based approach is applied to ensure the unique needs, experiences and perspectives of our people are understood, considered and applied as we move forward on all files. This bill does not apply a distinctions-based approach, potentially clouding reconciliation work with the voices of advocacy groups or organizations as opposed to representatives of rights holders.
For Bill C-29 to gather support from the Métis National Council, it will need a significant amount of consultation to adapt the legislation to truly ensure the creation of such a body would be meaningful and one that would fulfill the original intent of the TRC’s Calls to Action 53 to 56.
Should one sole body be established to truly hold government accountable for reconciliation, it would require legislation that provides for the authority that this legislation does not currently provide. At this time, and through this mechanism, this position and approach seem unattainable as Parliament has already denied providing the council with such powers, for example, the ability to administer subpoenas. Again, though, this approach would require a significant rewrite of the legislation and consultation with rights holders to ensure it is written in a meaningful way.
Furthermore, should this bill move forward, this legislation requires language to ensure that the newly established non-profit will not impede the work of Métis governments, the Métis National Council, other rights holders or national Indigenous representative bodies by clearly stating that this body will not have consultative powers.
It is our absolute belief that the Métis National Council, through our Métis governments and our collective processes and arrangements with the Government of Canada, is better positioned to be advocating and monitoring the reconciliation agenda as it pertains to Métis-specific priorities.
Again, thank you for having me here, and I look forward to the conversation.
The Chair: Thank you, President Caron. I now invite President Obed to provide opening remarks.
Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Nakurmiik. Thank you, senators, for inviting me. I appreciate the ongoing conversation about Bill C-29. Also, it is good to be here with the Assembly of First Nations and the Métis National Council.
We have been able to have conversations about this piece of legislation but then also the reconciliation agenda across this country, and I hope we can continue the good work that is happening in this country even though this particular scenario and this particular bill cause us enormous amounts of grief considering the way in which government, sometimes in a very clumsy way, tries to work on the reconciliation agenda.
The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, continues to withhold support for Bill C-29. Our major concern about this particular piece of legislation is that, in its current form, it would undermine Inuit-specific reconciliation priorities rather than advance them.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, itself cannot identify any Indigenous communities that participated in the development of the act. As Senator Anderson has noted, 32 individuals were engaged on the development of Bill C-29. This means that the legislation you’re examining reflects the collective work and views of one federal department and under 50 individuals. The bill was not co-developed with Inuit treaty organizations nor were Inuit rights holders involved in any way in the development of the legislation. What we have heard both in the past and more recently in this committee is the recognition that the engagement process for developing the legislation has been flawed.
The response, however, has been to double down on a flawed engagement process by calling for more engagement once the legislation is passed.
In our view, this legislature should fix the issues with this legislation prior to passage. It’s likely that the only way the Inuit could support this bill is if it was either amended to establish the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee as the mechanism directing work on Inuit-specific reconciliation measures or if the scope of the council’s functions were narrowed and defined.
The development of a pan-Indigenous mechanism, such as a national council for reconciliation, which will have no clear linkages to Inuit self-determined priorities, will likely marginalize Inuit in favour of the priorities of other Indigenous peoples as well as CIRNAC’s departmental priorities. It will also be up to individuals who serve on this not-for-profit society to decide what it is they would like to see, and that is certainly not the way that Inuit work to achieve self-determination in the year 2023.
We have four main concerns with the council. First, it will continue to rely on individual experts to self-define a vision for assessing and potentially defining reconciliation. This approach will be unstable and fragmented, but more importantly, it will be divorced from the Inuit representative institutions attempting to work in this area. Rather than supporting the work of self‑determination and the implementation of our existing human rights, the council would more likely simply operate independently and perhaps even obstruct the work that we propose to do with the Government of Canada.
The second concern we have is in relation to the place that Inuit have within the larger reconciliation work in this country. Our reconciliation priorities are different from Métis and First Nations. Attempting to bring all of those issues within a report that is then presented to government on an annual basis creates a scenario that will most likely mean that our priority areas are either not thought of or completely left out.
Our work on High Arctic relocations, the continuing impacts of tuberculosis and the unfinished work on the dog slaughters issue in Nunavik and Nunavut are some of the areas where we are working through the Inuit-Crown partnership process to define reconciliation in these areas, but certainly may not be the priorities of a pan-Indigenous Canadian reconciliation council.
Third, in addition to ousting self-defined Inuit priorities for reconciliation, the council itself will most likely displace work on key measures Inuit and others have been advancing on oversight, accountability and redress. Some of these measures have been in development for up to eight years.
At this time, ITK is working on mechanisms to provide recourse and redress related to substantive violations of the UN declaration and also in relation to the national ombudsperson related to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice. We are also working with the Government of Canada on oversight for modern treaty obligations for progress on the national inquiry’s Calls for Justice as well as the implementation of the UN declaration action plan.
Finally, the way the bill is currently drafted will hinder the ability of the council to carry out its intended functions effectively. The council will have limited access to information from government and no means to make informed decisions. This is a not-for-profit society that is being created for all of the whereas clauses and the preamble in this legislation that make it seem like the legislation ushers in a new era of accountability for government in relation to reconciliation. In the provisions of the legislation, it does not match. We’re very concerned about the place of this particular scope of work within our distinctions- and rights-based work with the federal government, which has, in many ways, been progressive and been exciting for Inuit especially since 2015 with the work that we have been able to achieve.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today on this issue. I have a fairly straightforward question here for your consideration, and it can be in writing if you prefer.
I think the overwhelming majority of Canadians support the idea of a national council for reconciliation to be established in consultation and in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, with the joint appointment of persons who would sit on such a council for reconciliation, along with the Government of Canada and the national Aboriginal organizations.
This committee has two options, in a way. One, we can try to fix these flaws that have been identified by amendments here in this committee. Or we can slow this down — knowing that the Government of Canada wants us to accomplish this by the end of June 2023, so in about six short weeks — to see if this legislation can be fixed with further collaboration and consultation with the groups mentioned in the TRC’s Call to Action 53, which Senator Tannas has pointed out, and do that over a further period of time to ensure that it is correct before it becomes legislation.
That’s really my simple question for the three witnesses today. I’ll hear anything they would like to say now, but certainly if you want to put that in writing that would be fine as well.
Mr. Obed: In the spirit of reconciliation, ITK would be pleased to work with the Government of Canada on potential amendments. Certainly, it will take more than six weeks to do this, no doubt. Hearing the testimony from other First Nations and Métis interests in relation to this bill, certainly ours are not the only concerns with this piece of legislation.
As we stated, we either want certainty in relation to the sustainability of our Inuit-specific reconciliation efforts with the Government of Canada or we would like to see this particular body have very clear functions that do not in any way confuse the rights-based relationships that Inuit have with the Crown.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to respond?
Ms. Achneepineskum: In response to the senator’s question, we take the position that we would need more time to ensure that the process to consult with the many groups across these lands is done in a good way. We have many documents already in terms of previous consultations in the words of survivors across this country, so we would need time but we are always coming from that place of moving forward in a respectful way. Meegwetch.
Ms. Caron: I would echo that as well. I do think this will require a significant amount of time to ensure that it is done correctly. To pass legislation knowing there are flaws that could potentially be fixed in future processes is not a position that the Métis National Council would support.
We do support the original intent of this council. However, it was created within an absolute silo, without understanding what processes already exist to move the reconciliation agenda forward, again, in a distinctions-based process.
Consultation would need to happen to make sure it takes that into consideration. I don’t think that could be done in six weeks.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I should add a point of clarification. It was mentioned that it would be done by the end of June, but that’s not necessarily true. We don’t know yet if it will be done by the end of June.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: From the Government Representative Office in the Senate’s perspective, that’s not my information, namely that this will be done and Royal Assent by the end of June. This process has to take its time and has to be done in a thoughtful way. The Government Representative Office and, through us, the government understands that.
Senator Arnot: That may be my mistake. I was under the impression that the government wanted us to pass this legislation before the end of June. I take that back. I didn’t understand that.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for that clarification. I was feeling the same thing, and it was making me stressed. I’m not ready. There’s so much to hear, plus we’ve heard not from all the groups. We have lots of groups across the country. We haven’t heard from those in the East, but I appreciate what you’re saying. This makes me think that, possibly, the government decided to design a dress. They sewed it together, but now it doesn’t fit right so they have to rip it apart. Will we be able to do that and make this work?
I like some of the things you’ve all been saying about the recommendations. We need to be thoughtful and careful about what we do with this because it’s going to affect people for a long time. What is the rush? How much time would we really need? Can you elaborate a bit about that, namely, your thoughts on some of the recommendations and the time we’d need?
Mr. Obed: Even the time between being told that the bill was ready to go and be introduced to the House until it was, we got the bill, I believe, two days before it was introduced in the House. We then were in committee two weeks later. As Inuit, we still have not been able to have a full discussion among rights holders and our board of directors and have a clear position on amendments to the legislation. We can do that. We can expedite those processes, but for Inuit, that’s the path that ITK is going to be taking. Hopefully, we will then be in a position to provide very clear, Inuit-specific solutions to improve this legislation. The foundation of our concerns remains in a lot of the overarching conversations about what this thing actually is.
Ms. Caron: I think a lot of that could have been cleared up through simple conversation with our organizations — AFN, ITK and MNC. It’s my understanding an interim board was working on the development of this legislation for a number of years now. Through that process, there was no formal process of them coming to our organizations, presenting to our boards and talking about the process of establishing this council, of writing this legislation and of the challenges that they might have encountered in doing this in collaboration with CIRNAC. I’m sure that the concerns we’re raising may have also been raised by individuals on that interim board, but there was no process for us to have that discussion.
I believe that interim board is still in place and may have even had their term extended while this process continues. There are a lot of brilliant people sitting on that board. I know that Willie Littlechild is on there. For him to be able to come to us and explain the intent of this, how it can be done in a good way, for them to understand the processes that the Métis National Council have already established to be moving these pieces forward and for us to be able to do this work in true collaboration and co‑development would certainly fix a lot of the issues that we have with the bill as tabled right now.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: If we’re going to climb out of this issue, we have to go back and start at the beginning and have some frank conversations. The bill is meant to address three specific Calls to Action that were thoughtful, well written and took many years to develop.
My first question is: Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the Calls to Action 53 to 56 or has the scope of what you believe was envisioned in 53 to 56 somehow been widened or blurred in some way that is causing you difficulty? I’m hopeful that anybody that is going to kind of try to take the bull by the horns here and do a round consultation to get us on some kind of a track is going to have to ask that question. Do you have a problem with the words in Calls to Action 53 to 56? Is there something in there that causes you to say, “No. I don’t agree with it, and we don’t agree with it.” If that’s the case, we should probably stick our hands up and say so. That’s my first question to the three distinguished leaders that we have here.
Ms. Caron: I can go first. It is important to recognize here those Calls to Action were developed 10 years ago. The Calls to Action were tabled in 2015, which was eight years ago. In those eight years, we’ve made a significant amount of progress as the Métis Nation in Canada working with the Liberal government. Progress has been made towards having our rights recognized and implemented; having established processes where we work bilaterally with the federal government; and opportunities to truly co-develop legislation moving forward.
It’s not that I disagree with the Calls to Action and the wording in there, but I think it’s important to recognize that when these were tabled, those processes didn’t exist. At that time, it was truly important to establish an accountability mechanism for government because reconciliation was not a priority then. However, it is right now. We have made significant progress in those years. It’s important to see how far we’ve come since the TRC’s Calls to Action were tabled and to take that progress into consideration when implementing these. It’s important to see this as a living document and not only to understand how far we’ve come, but also to take that into consideration when we are implementing these Calls to Action.
Ms. Achneepineskum: We must remember that in terms of the TRC’s process, the commissioners travelled across our territories and our homelands and heard from many survivors and many others that were affected by the Indian residential institutions. We trusted the commissioners to gather this information to put the recommendations together. Each and every one of us respect the recommendations that have been submitted. We must do our part to implement them and to do it in the most respectful way that we’re expected to do. As leaders, we have a responsibility to do that and to work in collaboration with the government and not to forget where those voices came from. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Mr. Obed, would you like a quick response?
Mr. Obed: I look back at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami resolutions from 2013 and I think it was a very different time. I wouldn’t go about instituting or implementing a resolution from either 12 years ago or 13 years ago without first checking back in to think, “Is this still relevant? Are we still on the same path?”
Certainly, the fundamental underpinning of this is the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The Métis were not part of that agreement, nor were all Inuit regions. A lot of this foundation is also not universal, so trying to create the implementation of specific Calls to Action is very messy when you think of those considerations as well.
ITK has passed a resolution in support of the implementation of the Calls to Action. We are generally in agreement with all Calls to Action, but when it comes to specific implementation, just like with the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice and with many other reports in the past, we take the spirit and foundation of those reports and apply them to the current time that we’re living in.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Senator Hartling asked my question, but my question to President Obed is this: I know you had meetings with the Prime Minister and the minister this weekend and that you were doing Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee work. Is the process of working with your land claims folks, as well as the government, to get to those amendments that you need to see clearer for you now? As a committee, we’d be interested in seeing the amendments that the national Indigenous organizations generate before we start proposing amendments.
Mr. Obed: We didn’t talk at all about Bill C-29 within our Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee meeting in Nunatsiavut last Friday. I’m still quite pleased that it’s the first time that a sitting Prime Minister has ever been to Nunatsiavut, and we went there to do business between Inuit leadership and the Crown. That type of work is unprecedented in this country. It has never before happened for Inuit. We’re very proud of the work we’ve been able to do, even though there’s so much more to get to.
A clear example that I want to give about the type of reconciliation work that we’re undertaking is within the creation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, action plan — the implementation of the legislation — Inuit have co-developed an Inuit-specific section of that particular legislation, which hopefully will be released in the next three weeks. A number of those action items link back to the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee process. We are embedding a rights-based and distinctions-based approach to the implementation of UNDRIP.
We’re doing that through a process that we have created together with the Government of Canada, which is a very different way than the call and response that the government has often been engaged with, of being the sole party that interprets and implements Indigenous peoples’ rights for Indigenous peoples. We have to move away from that model, and we are doing so in Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee. That is why we’re so protective of that in the face of a bill like Bill C-29.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I will speak in French. These are legal terms, so my “Frenglish” isn’t perfect yet.
A big thank you to the three leaders. Thank you very much to the chiefs and presidents. You understand that in what we call Canada, geopolitically, we have grassroots organizations, political organizations, and first- and second-line organizations.
What’s important about this meeting with you here today, is what you can leave us as a legacy. Your relationship with the federal government could change, knowing that it will be different from one prime minister to the next, for the next seven generations, that’s for sure.
How can we improve this bill? I’m anxious or really looking forward to seeing the wording or the words you want us to debate, to including them in our recommendations so that they become formal amendments and to sending them to the House of Commons.
For the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, for the Métis and for the Inuit, for me, this is fundamental. Can we also see in the texts you’ll be proposing as suggested amendments, how important it is for the federal government to maintain consultations with you and not just with this new council? That’s a danger.
In closing, because you have responsibility for reconciliation for your peoples, are you comfortable with the idea of this council having an accountability responsibility to you, once or twice a year? It’s about meeting with your elected officials and leaders to say, “Here’s what we’ve done.” So the elected official, the board of directors, has a formal relationship with you, but the consultation must be done with our guardians of rights, who are our three organizations here.
Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Achneepineskum: Meegwetch, Senator Audette. As always, much honour to you. Thank you for your question.
As a representative of the Assembly of First Nations, it is very important that we communicate with the communities and citizens that we are accountable to. We would have to ensure that there is a process to do that and that this particular committee would also be accountable to the people they are speaking about. We would have to ensure that there is a process to communicate, engage and present. That is very important. We need to ensure that that is part of the process.
As for the other comments you made, senator, I don’t have all the answers right now. I have taken note of these comments and we will respond in writing. Meegwetch.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Mr. Obed: Nakurmiik. Thank you for the question, Senator Audette.
There are fundamental changes that are out of scope that we would have loved to see in this particular piece of legislation, especially if we’re holding government to account. The first thing that comes to mind is the Indigenous human rights tribunal, an idea that was in the Calls for Justice — one that ITK has been pushing for since 2017, and one that in the United Nations declaration action plan we still hope to have traction to work further on. Also, galvanizing and solidifying the Inuit‑Crown Partnership Committee within this legislation in a distinctions‑based way would be very helpful. We recognize that those are unlikely to be seen as positive amendments.
In that regard, what is this council going to do? It’s going to go into the country and attempt to work on reconciliation, to provide space and opportunity for reconciliation to come into being between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. We still need institutions that create spaces and can then talk to Canadians about the work and progress that we have made towards reconciliation. But the moment you put the lens of government accountability into a not-for-profit society that has no ability to undertake those responsibilities in a real way, then we get into the space that we are now in.
I look at the debate around who is on the council, the organizations that have been identified and who has not been identified. This country has a long way to go. This government is at the starting blocks in terms of formally recognizing rights‑holding Inuit institutions and delineating those from advocacy organizations and from other groups — national, regional or community — that work on Indigenous peoples’ issues or concerns but that are fundamentally different than the government’s.
This country has not yet evolved to the point where governments can respect rights-holding institutions and delineate between a rights-holding institution and an advocacy body. This is really going to be in your face in this committee until this legislation evolves to the point where it can maturely address that issue.
The Chair: Thank you, President Obed. President Caron, if you have anything to add, I would ask you to provide it in writing. We have a hard stop at 11 o’clock.
Ms. Caron: Sure. I absolutely agree with President Obed and everything he just said.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all our witnesses today. This is such an important conversation and a turning point, I believe, for our committee and for where this process has to go.
Right now, this legislation is with us. It passed the House — here it is. We’re in an unusual position here, and you have very rightly, honestly and intelligently pointed out to us that we are now with something that you fear — and you’ve expressed your fears and concerns — could undermine the intent. We’re always looking for unintended consequences. That’s a job of a Senate committee, and the Senate as a body. The last thing we would want to see happen is for it to undermine Inuit reconciliation, undermine the relationship with the Métis Nation that we’ve just heard about and certainly the concerns that were expressed by Deputy Grand Chief Achneepineskum. This is a serious point, and I don’t want us to have this be the only time we hear from you because it’s usually what we do. We hear from you. We have your recommendations and amend the legislation, but we’re not anywhere near that point by the sound of it. Maybe we’re not that far from it either, if there’s an appropriate stage in between.
What I want to ask you about is what that appropriate stage in between is. We’ve heard the possible suggestions that the interim board do more work in reaching out to your bodies and others across the country. What do you see the next stage being between where we are today and where we would all like to get to in terms of getting this body up and running, that is trusted and that is functioning well for your organization and for all Canadians? Because this is for all Canadians.
Mr. Obed: This is only the third time in this country’s history that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has been named within federal legislation, and it’s quite an irony that we are here with the positions that we’ve put forward to you today.
In 2018, the interim board did have a recommendation that the legislation be co-developed with national Indigenous organizations. That has not happened. We’re dealing with the aftermath of advice that was not taken, and also exuberance when there should have been, by any calculation, a concern.
This country still does not understand reconciliation in relation to rights and so this legislation preys on that ignorance. Therefore, it’s not surprising to me that it would unanimously pass in the House of Commons because who is going to be against reconciliation? What Canadian is going to stand up and say no? And then how many Canadians can understand why we’re saying no?
Yes, time is essential, but there also has to be some way that our concerns can be formally considered by government because all we have is your processes. What I’d like to say is let’s go back and work with the government through the House to amend this legislation and bring it forward when it’s ready, but I know your systems and I know that it is ridiculous to suggest. I’m just as flummoxed about this as you.
The Chair: Thank you for that, President Obed. We’ll have to move on. I’ll remind witnesses that if you want to provide an answer in writing, you should certainly feel free to do so.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. The Calls to Action come from stories of former students of residential school, of which I am one, and 92% of whom were First Nations. I’m asking this question to the Métis Nation. Because it was from former students, how are your specific agenda items or your needs involved in the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action? That’s my first question.
The other question is that everyone — even from the first panel — has talked about a distinctions-based approach and that this pan-Canadian model will not work because each of the groups, the Métis, the Inuit and the First Nations, have their own histories. They have their own stories, and we haven’t heard the stories of the Métis Nation or the Sixties Scoop yet. They have very unique needs themselves and unique solutions that need to be arrived at. What are your recommendations for that, and what are the goals of reconciliation? I think it’s different for each group. As each of the three are going towards their own self‑determination and their own Indigenous sovereignty, we’re all over the place and this bill is here.
The one thing that does unite us is under Call to Action 46:
Full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation.
But that’s still an action plan; it’s still in its skeletal form. Can we get some comments, could we get some resolution? Because these three have been so mixed up. We need to look at each separately. I don’t know if you agree with that or not. Could you comment?
Ms. Caron: Thank you senator. Quite frankly, as you said, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission doesn’t reflect the lived realities, experiences and perspectives of the Métis Nation. Métis people were not a part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, or not a majority of Métis residential school survivors, I would say. Some slipped through the cracks and made it into that settlement agreement, but a large majority did not. Because of that, the foundation does not reflect the ongoing needs of the Métis Nation.
Our survivors are still fighting for recognition, and I’d love the opportunity one day to come in and talk to you about Île‑à‑la‑Crosse and the ongoing injustice that those survivors, almost seven generations of Métis people, continue to face as they’ve not been recognized as residential school survivors.
I’ll provide more to you in writing, however, with respect to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, we are in support of the broad intent of all of that to move the reconciliation agenda forward. However, it’s so important to move this forward in a distinctions-based way so that our stories and our priorities do not get lost as we continue to move forward. As you said, it’s important to recognize the self‑determination of each of our nations, and the council, as proposed right now, absolutely does not respect that.
The Chair: Unfortunately, we have a hard stop, due to interpretation, at 11 o’clock. I remind our witnesses that they can provide further information in terms of a written submission if they would like to do that. The time for this panel is now complete. Again, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and giving us some powerful testimony.
(The committee adjourned.)