---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 17, 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 Peoples from across Turtle Island.

I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.

Honourable David M. Arnot: Thank you, I’m Senator David Arnot, Saskatchewan. I live in Saskatoon in Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.

Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.

Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.

Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, I live in Banff, Treaty 7 territory.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson from Alberta on Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaq.

Senator Audette: Kwe. [Indigenous language spoken] Michèle Audette, Maliotenam, in Quebec.

Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia Treaty 6 territory.

The Chair: Thank you, senators. 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 their exchanges brief. Due to time limitations, each senator will have five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer. We will give priority to committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we will begin a second round. In addition, I will ask witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing before the end of the week.

I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. We have, appearing as an individual, the Honourable Senator Patrick Brazeau. Welcome Senator Brazeau. From the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation we have Stephanie Scott, Executive Director, and Raymond Frogner, Head of Archives. From Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak we have Melanie Omeniho, President.

Thank you to all for joining today. The witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.

I will now invite Senator Brazeau to give his opening remarks.

Hon. Patrick Brazeau, Senate of Canada, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank you and the clerk for inviting me to provide a few remarks in an attempt to bring some context with respect to an omission in this bill. The omission is omitting one of the five national Indigenous organizations in Canada.

Colleagues, 22 years ago I got involved in what I call an underdog organization called the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The issue that organization was dealing with at that time was that former Prime Minister Chrétien’s government had introduced the First Nations governance act to try to get away from the Indian Act.

At that time, the Assembly of First Nations didn’t want to take part in that process because they didn’t believe in it, so the organization I was with got approached to participate, and we did so.

However, when Paul Martin took over as prime minister from Jean Chrétien, that government decided to deal only with the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit, therefore excluding the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Colleagues, in Indian country and Indian politics — First Nations people, Métis and regardless — many look toward an organization for representation. Many feel they are not represented by these organizations, but the fact of the matter today, as it was 20 years ago, is that there are five national Indigenous organizations. What’s being tried here with the help of other Indigenous organizations is that the definition of Aboriginal peoples in Canada states in the Constitution that it includes the First Nations, Inuit and Métis. It’s not just those organizations that have a monopoly on representation. They didn’t have a monopoly in 1971 or after 1969 when the White Paper came out, which is why many of these organizations were created. As a matter of fact, what is now the Métis National Council used to be part of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP. There was a break-off in 1993 or 1994.

When this current government, whether by design or not — we’re going to hear from the minister in the future, but I still don’t understand why one of the five Indigenous organizations in Canada is being excluded. Whether it’s on purpose or not, they’re still being excluded, and it’s not right. It’s not right because if I name a couple of names to you — like Tony Belcourt, Kermit Moore, Harry Daniels, Smokey Bruyere, Gloria George and Viola Robinson — those are all people who are part of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

I’m not here to defend the congress because they will have representation later. I was part of the congress, but I’m not here to defend it. I’m not here in a partisan fashion. I’m here in a non-‑partisan fashion just to provide some information and context, because, unfortunately, I’m one of the only living former leaders of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Luckily, I guess, I have that institutional memory.

I mentioned at second reading that when former Prime Minister Harper decided to apologize to residential school survivors, I, along with even the current Governor General of Canada, was on the floor of the House of Commons when the apology took place, and we were able to speak on the floor of the House of Commons back in 2008. However, the next day, June 12, 2008, the Assembly of First Nations, Métis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, were to present before the Senate. Guess who got excluded — the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. On June 11, 2008, the Senate — I wasn’t a senator then — had to pass a motion in order for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to be able to speak the day after the apology to residential school survivors. That was in 2008.

My career began 22 years ago. In 2023, I am still here talking about the same things, talking about exclusion. When the government talks about reconciliation and purposefully, or not, excludes an organization, we should all ask ourselves the question, “why?”

I know that many around this table might have preferences as to whom they deal with, with respect to Indigenous organizations, but I will repeat that there are five — not four, not three, not two and not one — organizations. That shouldn’t be very difficult to comprehend. I can go on and on about CAP if that were your wish in the future, but for the purpose of today, I am not commenting on the bill. I know some have suggested that maybe it needs a total rewrite. However, let’s wait until the minister appears and ask those really hard questions.

Colleagues, there was an attempt to bring an amendment to include CAP in the House of Commons. A deal between the Liberals and the NDP killed that amendment. I’m not a member of this committee, but I am certainly hoping that somebody around this table will introduce an amendment to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Because the bottom line is this. Maybe, in the future, new organizations will be formed. I don’t know. That would be my dream to have an organization that is not funded by the Government of Canada. That would have real clout. But the reality is that these five organizations are all we have right now. That’s all we have right now. When one of them is excluded, how dare somebody talk about nation-to-nation and reconciliation. That’s hurtful to all the leaders who worked for that organization and their families. We have a government today that is trying to exclude them, and it is wrong.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for your remarks.

Raymond Frogner, Head of Archives, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation: [Cree spoken]

My name is Raymond, and I am the Head of Archives of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, or NCTR. I am joining you today from Winnipeg in Treaty 1 Territory, the original lands of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, the homeland of the Red River Métis and home to a great many Inuit.

I am speaking as the Head of Archives of the NCTR, and I am also a member of the National Advisory Committee on Residential School Missing Children and Unmarked Burials. I am joined by Stephanie Scott, the Executive Director of the NCTR.

Today, I am speaking in support of Bill C-29 and the establishment of a long-awaited national council for reconciliation. As you know, the NCTR was created to continue critical work that was started by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, or TRC. The NCTR is the steward of the survivor statements gathered by the TRC and is also Canada’s foremost archive for residential school-related records.

The NCTR continues to gather statements from survivors, and we continue to negotiate access to the extensive body of records that were never released to the TRC. The NCTR supports survivors in accessing these records, and it supports researchers in the ongoing work of telling the story of residential schools and related institutions. The NCTR also works with survivors in commemoration activities and extensive public education programming to ensure that this history is understood and never forgotten.

Given the unique and vital role of the NCTR, committee members may be surprised to learn that the NCTR was never consulted about Bill C-29. In fact, the Survivors Circle that guides the NCTR has been asking the question: How could this initiative have gotten so far without their voices being at the table? I’m not saying this to condemn Bill C-29 but to illustrate why coordination, oversight and accountability are so important as we move forward together on this path of reconciliation. There is an enormous amount of work taking place across the country by survivors and their communities, by Indigenous organizations, by public and private institutions and through government. But I would suggest that no one has a complete or clear picture of these activities.

We’re missing out on important opportunities to collaborate, learn from our missteps and implement best practices together. I would also say that the federal government needs to do more to turn its commitment to reconciliation into consistent practice. This includes ensuring survivors, Indigenous governments and Indigenous-led institutions are fully engaged every step of the way. This is why it is so important that we have a national council, that it be truly independent and that it be fully resourced to carry out its important work.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Stephanie Scott, Executive Director, National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation: Boozhoo Miskwa aankwaadkwe ndizinakaaz wabeshishii dodem. Winnipeg doonji.

My Anishinaabe name is Red Cloud Woman. My family is from the Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation, and I am Marten Clan. I have the privilege to live and work in Treaty 1 territory, homeland of my peoples. Meegwetch to the honourable senators for this opportunity to speak with you today.

As my colleague Raymond Frogner mentioned, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation supports the adoption of Bill C-29. It has been gratifying to see the support for this bill from parliamentarians. The national council on reconciliation is one of the three pillars of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. The creation of a national council is frankly overdue, and we would not want to see it further delayed.

However, the NCTR does have some concerns with Bill C-29, which we hope will be addressed in its implementation. It is puzzling and disappointing that when the bill set out the composition of its future board of directors, residential school survivors are the last to be named. Further, the requirements to include survivors is qualified with the phrase “to the extent possible” as are all other requirements for the composition of the board. Why is it not mandatory that the board include survivors or their descendants, many of whom are elders and knowledge-keepers? I would like to remind all parliamentarians that there would not have been a TRC if it had not been for decades of struggle by survivors to overcome the concerted efforts of the church and government to silence them.

The research of the TRC and the NCTR validates thousands of children that have died in these residual institutions. Each year we lose more of these courageous warriors. As long as they are with us, we must honour their voices. At the NCTR, we believe that a fundamental principle of reconciliation is that our work must be led by survivors.

Next, it is not clear how all the important work set out by the bill will be accomplished. The council will be called on to:

monitor, evaluate, conduct research and report on the progress being made towards reconciliation . . . in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments . . .

This includes assessing policies, programs and laws that affect Indigenous peoples; recommending measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate reconciliation; and evaluating progress made on measurable outcomes. To be successful in this work, the council will need to hear directly from Indigenous communities. This means visiting communities, and it means ensuring survivors have access to the health supports they need to participate in this dialogue. It is critical that the council be resourced with these needs in mind.

Also, the annual reports that are required to create the committee are an opportunity to develop better tools to evaluate progress towards reconciliation. For example, the bill itself focuses on raw comparison between Indigenous and non‑Indigenous communities in areas such as income levels and funding levels for services such as education. But if we really want to evaluate progress to reconciliation, we also need to ask Indigenous peoples how they will measure progress towards restoration and healing of their culture and communities. As an Anishinaabe Kwe, today I am not safe in my traditional lands. This means we have far to go in this country to repair past harms and ensure that my children and my grandchildren are safe and can thrive before we reconcile. We are very much still in the truth stage.

Additionally, the NCTR is concerned about the data that will be generated —

The Chair: Ms. Scott, I’m sorry to interrupt. Your time is up. I let you go a little longer. Thank you.

Now we will go to President Omeniho to give opening remarks.

Melanie Omeniho, President, Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak: Good evening. My name is Melanie Omeniho, and I am the president of Women of the Métis Nation — Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak. I would like to acknowledge that I am joining you today from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, as well as the Métis Nation British Columbia.

Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak is a national Indigenous women’s organization that was democratically mandated to represent Métis women across the Métis nation motherland. I am speaking in favour today of the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. We are in support of the national council for reconciliation act.

I also recognize that this work has been years in the making, with the first interim council having been appointed on December 14, 2017. Having reviewed the proposed bill, I am heartened to see the guidelines for participation and membership on this national council. It is my hope that among the diverse members of the committee, we will see qualified women, elders, youth, two-spirited and gender-diverse Indigenous people as well as residential school survivors who can assist Métis women and all Indigenous people in Canada advance authentic and effective reconciliation efforts.

With respect to the first official election of the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation, we note and appreciate the distinctions-based formation guidelines. We support the Métis National Council in nominating a member of the council for election. Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak will participate within the capacity to support the consideration of nominees from among our community of Métis women throughout the Métis motherland.

Our hope is to encourage the national council for reconciliation, once elected, to move this good work forward, embracing our traditional values of [Indigenous language spoken] while holding up strength-based, laterally kind and trauma-informed ways of working as we advance reconciliation in Canada in an inclusive way. We speak strongly in favour of the work of the national council for reconciliation being guided and supported with ongoing Indigenous gender-based analysis and an intersectional lens in its implementation of its numerous functions.

We would be delighted to offer our support in providing a Métis-specific, gender-based lens for this important work. Having participated in the development of other multi-year action plans within the federal partners, Indigenous leaders and national Indigenous women’s organizations, we remain hopeful that this national council will be efficiently and practically empowered to effect meaningful and measurable outcomes, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Call to Action 55.

We look forward to the nomination and recruitment process to form the council, and we will be actively engaged in closely monitoring the disclosures of information and reporting of the national council for reconciliation in related annual reports.

It will take everyone a collective effort to make this process a success and to empower the historical national council to be a driving force to advance reconciliation in Canada. I particularly acknowledge the level of transparency and commitment with respect to the annual report of the minister and the truth-facing Indigenous children, youth, gender-diverse, women, men and elders in Canada.

I look forward to joining other Indigenous leaders to contribute to the success of the undertaking and to support the national council for reconciliation.

Thank you very much for listening.

The Chair: Thank you, President Omeniho.

Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today.

I thank Senator Brazeau for coming forward. I think he has a unique position as a witness before us here today, having been the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I have a general question for all the witnesses.

I think we all recognize that a national, well-funded plan to establish a truth and reconciliation council in Canada, pursuant to the Calls to Action, is long overdue. The committee has heard — and I have heard — some concerns about the approach put forward in this bill from individual people, both formally and informally, and many have said to me that even though Bill C-29 is not perfect, we desperately need to get going on this — and I have heard it here from some of the witnesses — and not wait for years. In effect, we don’t want to search for the perfect and be the enemy of the good.

Given the positions that I have heard, and given, certainly, sir, your unique position, I’m asking you to describe the need for measures to enable reconciliation, as you see it, and I would like you to comment on the bill, at least generally. It’s presented in a certain form now; it may need amendment. Let us know if there are any areas of amendment you think this committee should particularly focus on.

Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.

Our job as senators is to review legislation and try to improve legislation, if we see fit, and I’m not going to comment on the contents of the bill this evening, because I’m here with a different hat on.

But having said that, I came here because there is an omission; there is an organization that has been forgotten. Let’s not forget that all these five organizations are funded by the federal government, and so when the federal government says, “Well, we’re going to offer a seat to these four or five organizations, and we’re going to reserve a few seats for us,” well, let’s not kid ourselves.

If we look at the preamble of the whole thing, and talking about nation to nation —

Senator Arnot: Senator Brazeau, could I just intervene for a second? The reason I didn’t ask you that direct question is because I know your arguments. I was the Director General of Aboriginal Justice for Justice Canada from 1994 to 1997, and I met with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, regularly. I understand your arguments, and I’m sympathetic to them. I was just wondering about this larger issue — and I think you can help all of us here today — about the state of the bill, the need to get a truth and reconciliation council in place on a national basis.

Senator Brazeau: Obviously, I think we need something of the like, and if we’re successful in getting all the organizations in there, at least we will have done our job, and we will let them decide how that organization is going to go forward. When we look at the preamble in many of the federal government — regardless of who is in power in the government — but when talking about nation to nation, it’s just —

We always say here that we’re on unceded Algonquin territory. Were the Algonquin people consulted in this bill? Was Algonquin Nation consulted? The answer is no. It was organizations that were formed to represent peoples. That is what we have. We all know that all of these organizations are not perfect. We all know that all of them have their own issues and have had their own issues at different points in time. Like I said, the reality today is that we have five recognized, funded, national Indigenous organizations by the Government of Canada. So if they exclude one or two organizations, it is up to them to clearly state why they are doing that.

I don’t have any information as to why the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples may have been excluded, but based on my experience in the last 22 years, let’s just say that the Government of Canada likes to play politics and use different Indigenous organizations, even to fight amongst each other. Let’s not hide that fact as well.

In answer to your question, I think we need something of the like. It was a Call to Action. We’re almost there, and we can improve it. We can improve this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Brazeau. I will remind witnesses, if you don’t get a chance to provide an answer now, you have the option to provide it in writing. Unfortunately, we have a five-minute time limit for someone to ask a question and for someone to provide an answer. I have to stick to that because we have many anxious senators on the list looking to ask questions.

Senator Sorensen: Welcome to all the witnesses. I want to thank Senator Brazeau for the history lesson. That was super helpful for me to understand the history of CAP. I keep hearing about CAP and the situation of CAP, and I appreciate your perspective.

I want to ask a question of Ms. Scott and Mr. Frogner. It’s disappointing to hear that your organization was not consulted. That was a bit surprising from my perspective. I want to comment that from this week’s witnesses we heard lots of conversations about the necessity to involve knowledge-keepers and elders as a huge part of this council. That was well heard by us, I think I can say, last week.

We’ve heard concerns that the council might detract from progress that is already being made and work that is already being done. I would appreciate a comment on that from your perspective. It is becoming apparent that there is one area where progress is very slow. To add to that, do you think that the council could, or do you hope that it could, fill a void if it was given the power to compel documents and testimony? Thank you.

Ms. Scott: Yes, absolutely, it’s crucial right now. It was in 2015 that the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ended. We’ve continued the work. We were born out of the TRC.

We weren’t consulted, but anything that’s moving forward in regard to this act has to be survivor-led and survivor-centred. We’re losing them every day. I can tell you that the many survivors I have sat with across this country understand the need to execute this quickly. We’re losing them every day, and it’s really significant because there’s a depth of voice. The feedback that they provide, the life experiences and the history can only make this council much, much better. Without them, and with them being second thought, it will not thrive. We don’t need to repeat past mistakes.

Mr. Frogner: Absolutely. I think it’s important to recognize that what we’re doing is a generational transformation in the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the settler society. We’re building mechanisms now that will reset the dialogue on principles of dignity, equality and respect. The council could go a long way in supporting the acquisition of records. That would include records of the agreement-in-principle and other document proceedings, for example, the federal government transferring over approximately 10 million more records at the moment. Last week, we just negotiated the final settlement of the Oblate agreement that will turn over the records from the Oblate order. There are still a considerable number of records and sources that document this history that we still need to acquire.

Another way that could be supported is by redrafting the National Archives of Canada Act, which is the act that actually talks about the documentary history of the nation but makes no mention whatsoever of the Indigenous identity of Canada. Having a newly drafted archives act that includes that identification would also be helpful in collecting the history of the records that we hold as the principal research centre for the history and the legacy of residential schools in Canada.

Senator Sorensen: Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses, our colleague Senator Brazeau and our guests online. I have so many questions that have arisen from the various pieces of testimony.

I want to just say something to Senator Brazeau. I do appreciate what you’re telling us. That history is important for us, and that it’s coming from you also carries weight, as you know. On the record, when I questioned Senator Martin in the Senate on her speech on this bill, it wasn’t that I was questioning the legitimacy of CAP. I was questioning the basis for that legitimacy. I want to just clear the air.

I have a question for Ms. Scott, and then a question for anybody who would like to answer it. I found it very interesting that you said we’re very much still in the truth stage, because we’re talking about a council of truth and reconciliation, which will have both functions. Your centre also has that function. I understand you’re still uncovering truths. But there will be new truths about gaps, et cetera, that will be important and data to demonstrate gaps or hopefully progress towards reconciliation that will be a part of this. Could you speak a little bit more on what you mean by that, that we’re still at the truth stage and the implications of that for the bill?

Ms. Scott: Yes. We had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. I was a manager of statement-gathering at that time. I’ve been all over the country and listened to survivors and their truths. The TRC got us to a certain point in time. The NCTR continues that work. We’ve made significant progress. Raymond has continued our research. We’re still going to receive over 15 million more records, and within those records, there will be a major amount of truth that is yet to be told.

Raymond has completed some research in regard to the number of missing children in residential schools. That number is going to increase, along with the survivor statements, which we hold very close and dear to our hearts and want to preserve for decades to come. This is paired with the documents and the evidence. Everything that they speak to is more truth. There is so much work to be done — research that is led by the NCTR. There is some duplication when you take a look at the mandates, but I think that in the absence of the council, the NCTR has forged ahead, and that has come through multiple conversations. We had no choice, because we’re here for the children and here for the survivors, so when I speak about truth, we still do not know the full truth.

Senator Coyle: I believe all the three of you on our screen here mentioned that you’re in favour of Bill C-29. I think I heard each of you underline the importance of its independence. Could you speak to what you mean by that?

Mr. Frogner: I could say a couple words on this.

We understand that reconciliation is based on acknowledgment to begin with, so a full and complete recognition of this history is the first step toward reconciliation between settler societies and Indigenous peoples. In addition to that, it needs to be a transparent and accountable set of records that leads to this truth so that there is no possibility of deniability. The record needs to be clear and accountable. It needs to be a trustworthy history of what occurred. That kind of faith in the record and in the history is what will be the first steps toward reconciliation and a dialogue that is profitable for everyone.

Senator Coyle: Thank you. Does anybody else have anything to say?

Ms. Omeniho: I would like to talk about a few truths that are still to be discovered and talked about.

One, there are eight nationally funded Indigenous organizations. Métis women and Inuit women always get left out of the equation when talking about the four or the five, and nobody wants to talk about how they get marginalized.

But the other truth is that the stories of Métis people who have been a part of residential schools have never been told, and they need to be documented and supported in moving forward. I know we’re working with the Île-à-la-Crosse residential school with the challenges they’ve had. I know people continue to push forward on the issues of day schools. Just because you were in a day school didn’t change what the results were, and those people have stories and trauma to also put forward.

So a lot of work needs to be done, and the exclusion of anybody is not appropriate. We need to make sure we’re including everybody.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Omeniho.

Senator Tannas: First of all, I just want to say to Ms. Scott that we haven’t forgotten about our conversation that we had on hauling non-complying bodies forward and asking them why they’re not cooperating with you. We’ll get to it. We’re obviously seized with government legislation, but I look forward to that day. We’ll work hard to get to it.

I want to just come back to the membership. Ms. Melanie Omeniho just talked about the additional ones. This is to populate the initial board, and then from there, it appears to me that the board will start to select people as people drop off, but I might have that wrong; I might not understand. Would it make sense, as a way out of this, for us to make the board, to actually be bold and have every seat determined? So the four associations that are already selected, plus the friendship centres, plus somebody from the NCTR that you would nominate out of survivors that you know — we could go down the list and probably come close to 13 or 10 members such that everybody would be happy.

Is that a way out of this, or do you have another idea of how we get past this issue? I would be interested to know if you’ve given it any thought. Thank you.

Ms. Scott: I think that you could create a circle of survivors that has representation from across Canada to be an oversight body of the national council.

At the NCTR, we’ve continued to expand the circle. The depth of advice and guidance that we receive from distinct-based nations is crucial to our work. We don’t go a day without contacting or working with them directly. We are here and we exist because of survivors, and we will work with them and amplify their voices as long as we are in existence.

I think a circle of survivors would definitely add a layer of strength to that council.

The Chair: Anyone else? Ms. Omeniho?

Ms. Omeniho: I know we could all spend a lot of time debating and arguing the composition of the first council. My understanding is the same as what was described: The council will then start picking among itself; it won’t be political organizations or others trying to choose.

But the truth is that we need to have this move forward. We need the transparency and independence that this group is going to have in the end, because it’s going to be important to ensure that we’re moving forward on reconciliation.

Senator Martin: Thank you to all the witnesses. I have two questions. My first one is to Senator Brazeau.

I heard earlier today that what differentiates CAP from the other organizations named is that it is a provider of services rather than a rights-holder. Is that a correct assessment? Even then, as a national organization, it has been excluded, so I would love to get clarity on that statement.

Senator Brazeau: Thank you for the question.

Even 20 years ago, people were questioning what CAP was. What’s the membership of the Assembly of First Nations or the Métis National Council? What are their membership rules? The congress is a national organization made up of provincial affiliate organizations. I don’t think there are affiliate organizations in every province or territory, for historical reasons and issues that have happened and whatnot.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is a political advocacy organization. They don’t provide services. Their provincial affiliate organizations, like the Native Council of Nova Scotia, will provide services to their members.

But in terms of an Indigenous organization, there’s not much difference except for whom the organization represents. There aren’t many differences.

They’re all funded by the Government of Canada. I’ve said this before — and I said it when I was leader — when you decide not to play ball with the Government of Canada, there are consequences.

Like I said, the reality is that we have five organizations, so let’s deal with those. When I say “five organizations,” I’m talking about the political advocacy organizations. There have always been five, and now there’s an attempt to limit that. That goes to a more fulsome discussion on the jurisdiction of the federal government with respect to all Indigenous peoples.

We haven’t gotten into that, but it’s through the Daniels Supreme Court decision. Harry Daniels was the former president of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. We were successful before the Supreme Court, with the court telling the federal government, that, even though you created the different labels — status, non-status, treaty, non-treaty, et cetera — they’re responsible for all Indigenous peoples. For many years, the federal government has operated as if they only have jurisdiction for on-reserve “Indians.” Why do I say that? Because the federal government, for every $8 they spent on reserve, they spent $1 off reserve.

So this is an issue and an attempt at off-loading to the provinces. I’ve never met a provincial premier who said, “Yes, federal government, once a person moves off reserve, they’re our jurisdiction.” I’ve never met one yet.

When we talk about assimilationist policy, this is not an assimilationist policy, but the federal government is certainly exercising it. I’ve seen it. I saw it 20 years ago, and I see it today; it’s still continuing. My message to everybody, especially First Nations people in these organizations, is this: For God’s sake, work together, because the federal government is using you against each other.

Senator Martin: As other colleagues have said, your insights this evening have been very helpful, and you have that institutional memory. I feel like there’s a lot to unpack in what you just said. I wish we had more time.

Ms. Scott, perhaps you can respond in writing, because I know I have less than one minute remaining. In the action plan that this council would develop and implement — a multi-year national action plan is one of its first mandates — I wanted to understand what you would recommend, because you were excluded during the consultation process, but once it’s implemented, I would hope that you would be part of the development of this multi‑year action plan. Your voice would be very important.

Ms. Scott: I want to quickly acknowledge that you haven’t forgotten our conversation either about the records, so I appreciate that too.

Senator McCallum: Thank you all for your presentations. I wanted to go to the relationships within reconciliation. It’s multi-generational. It’s multi-faceted. It’s huge. When you look at First Nations — and I’m looking at myself as a former student — that the reconciliation I have to do with myself, with the land, the community, the language, the culture, is one huge thing.

And the Métis, like we have heard, their stories have not been heard yet, and their stories are different from ours, from the stories that were told in the TRC. It’s the same with the Sixties Scoop. We have the Métis, and then we have the Indigenous and non-Indigenous — it’s not reconciliation. It’s conciliation. That’s a different word.

When you look at the engagement that needs to happen, that it needs to be true, that it’s less trauma-informed, all levels have different needs. Oppression has resulted in political chaos, with social discord, collective dependency, human rights abuses, amongst other issues. Do you think the action plan and the committee would be able to do all this, or should they concentrate on certain things, remembering that the final conciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples will need a healthy Indigenous population to make it a positive, transformative relationship?

When I look at all that, because of all the work I do for myself — you do a lot of stuff simultaneously, so how do you — do you think it’s doable?

The Chair: Would anyone like to take a crack at answering Senator McCallum’s question?

Ms. Scott: I will. Or, Melanie, did you have your hand up? I’ll let her go first.

Ms. Omeniho: One of the things I said in my presentation is that we need to go back to the values of [Indigenous language spoken], which is building relationships with all of our people and helping us to heal collectively. If we exclude or are using our processes to create more divisiveness, we’ve lost this battle. We need to work together and be a collective so we can move forward in the best interests of the people, and it always needs to be trauma-informed.

Ms. Scott: I absolutely agree. I’m a daughter of a survivor. I’m a Sixties Scoop survivor. I was taken at birth. I have spent decades on myself as well, trying to repair and reclaim what has been lost, and I am not going to give up, and I won’t let the government dictate as to how and where I should be healthy, but the trauma-informed process is crucial. Every day, in the work that we do, we’re faced with harm, trauma, pain and suffering. It can’t be separate and distinct, because we’re still in that process that I mentioned earlier. We have got residential schools, Sixties Scoop, child welfare, prisons, our women are dying. So it is not separate and distinct. As long as you start to chip away and come together and be inclusive, we can do it together as nations. Distinct based, we’re more powerful, and I think the government will be afraid of that, so we need to work together.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Ms. Omeniho, it’s nice to see you again. I have a series of questions that I think we can get done in five minutes.

I know you have been around the Métis Nation of Alberta for the last 300 years, so you really know the history of the MNA. Can you tell me what the relationship is — this is the first question — the organizational relationship between the Métis locals, the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Nation of Ontario? How does that work?

Ms. Omeniho: In Alberta there is a strong relationship between the Métis locals, the Métis regions and the Métis Nation of Alberta, and it is now just recently, with a vote of over 16,000 people supporting it, moving into a process of a constitution, which will bring those communities collectively together and make them a stronger part of the Métis Nation governance within Alberta.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: In the Métis Nation of Alberta constitution, can you be a member of a First Nation and the Métis Nation of Alberta?

Ms. Omeniho: No, you can’t. You either are a member of the Métis Nation or you are a First Nations person.

The other part about the Métis Nation of Alberta, and all of our provincial Métis organizations, is they are all provincially, democratically elected in province-wide elections every four years.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Could you tell me what the parameters of becoming a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta are? Talk to me about the rigour of the process of becoming a member.

Ms. Omeniho: To become a member of the Métis Nation, of any of our Métis Nation governing processes, you have to be able to prove that you are historically connected, and you have to be able to demonstrate that with documents and a family lineage. In fact, our rigour to become a member of any of our Métis nations is of stronger and harder rigour than any other organization we have ever been part of. I know that the people that are Métis citizens within our Métis Nation are actually verifiable Métis people that are a part of our communities and can historically prove back to the 1600s and 1700s that that’s who their community was and that’s the nation they belong to.

Senator Greenwood: I have a couple of questions, so maybe the first one I would invite a written response.

I found the discussion very interesting, and thank you, Senator Martin, for your questions because it really made me think. I’m wishing we had more time for discussion.

As I was listening this evening, I certainly heard the talk of the political organizations regarding who is in, who is out, those sorts of things. I have worked with a number of national Indigenous organizations in this country over the years, and so I think there are a number of organizations. I think about that, and as I was listening to Ms. Scott and to Mr. Frogner, it was interesting for them to talk about the Survivors Circle, and I so understand that. I am wondering how these two concepts, these two big ideas, will come together. I think the bill, as I read it, is, in part, trying to do that. So I would really appreciate if each of you, respectively, could think about what a structure would look like that is based on the Survivors Circle, relative to this bill and what it currently has in it.

The other part of that, Senator Brazeau, is the political organizations. I have an idea of where you would go, but what would that look like relative to this bill? Is it simply the addition of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples to it? Or maybe it’s more than that. So I would love to engage you in that. I would ask for written comments.

In other sessions, when we have had witnesses before us, people have talked about the structure that’s presented in the bill itself and wondered if it would displace other work that’s already being done by other groups on reconciliation. Would it be used by governments to circumvent direct consultation or engagement with Indigenous peoples? Could they go to that committee and not go to the people themselves? That is part of that question. That question is open to all of you for any comment that you would like to make.

Senator Brazeau: I will say that perhaps that question would be better asked to the minister and his officials.

Senator Greenwood: Thank you.

Ms. Omeniho: I would just say at this point that it would be important that this not be the only view of reconciliation. I can’t answer what the federal government is going to do. I could only hope, though, that especially as we’re working on issues related to the Sixties Scoop, related to the child welfare system and related to missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls that this is only one piece of reconciliation. There is a lot of work to be done to deal with the traumas that we have been exposed to and have had to experience. We’re hoping a similar process or commission can be set up for missing and murdered Indigenous women to make sure that there’s an oversight committee to help us move forward on the recommendations that were made from the inquiry.

Mr. Frogner: If I could support what was just said as well, there is a danger of the council attempting to be all things to everyone. This kind of meta narrative that envelopes all of the issues into one single council isn’t possible. This is a diverse and complicated history that goes back several generations, and it can’t be addressed by a single committee. The committee can support work done on the ground in local communities to solve these issues. I think that would be the strength of the council, not trying to oversee all the activities as a meta council that envelopes everything. That would be counterproductive.

Senator Greenwood: Thank you.

The Chair: We’re almost out of time, but I want to go back to Ms. Scott because I had to cut her off in her opening remarks. If she would like to finish a couple of minutes of them, we can do that.

Ms. Scott: I absolutely I appreciate that. I just wanted to highlight the inclusion of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and to strengthen and amplify that within the bill. It only exists in the preamble right now, so we wanted to highlight that as a way forward.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Scott. Senator Audette, do you have a little question you would like to ask?

Senator Audette: I want to say thank you to all the witnesses and the leadership that you represent every day and how you vibrate in my heart. For me, where I’m coming from — some of you know where I am coming from — we tend to say: Canada tell us what you did or what you do or what’s good, what’s wrong. But if we can enhance in this bill that the council goes to you also, that they have that responsibility and relationship with you, even if you propose a board member, the accountability of this is what happened in Canada is more official. We’re giving you the report.

I don’t know if that is something you would like to see.

Ms. Scott: Unity is important. Unity is crucial. I think that relationship and working together are needed. Indigenous people aren’t going anywhere. We have been here forever. When we come together, there is power in that, and that’s what I hope this council can be and will be.

Senator Audette: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette. The time for this panel is complete. I wish to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and I invite you to provide any outstanding answers in writing to the clerk before the end of the week if you wish to do so.

The Chair: As I mentioned before, I will ask everyone to please keep exchanges as brief as possible. Due to time limitations, each senator will have five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer. Priority will go to committee members and then to other colleagues.

I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses. From the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples we have Kim Beaudin, National Vice-Chief, and Lorraine Augustine, Board Director. From the National Association of Friendship Centres we have Jocelyn Formsma, Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you to all for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Vice-Chief Beaudin to give opening remarks.

Kim Beaudin, National Vice-Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge we are on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has for 52 years advocated for the rights and interest of the non-status, status off-reserve, Métis and southern Inuit peoples. We are often the only voice for our off-reserve communities and we are truly the only group that has the right to speak for our communities.

Reconciliation is always at the forefront of our work, mainly because so many of our people have ended up off reserve or lost their status because of residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, child welfare systems, the Indian Act and more. Our survivors and our communities have been excluded, ignored and marginalized.

Bill C-29 continues this marginalization. The voices of non‑status and off-reserve peoples are being silenced through this new form of colonialism and assimilation. Today more than 80% of Indigenous people live off reserve in urban, rural and remote parts of Turtle Island. They are the new Indigenous reality. Canada has virtually made no effort to protect or support their welfare and done even less in terms of reconciliation.

For years this government has failed to recognize CAP’s peoples. Only after a 17-year legal battle did this question get answered. The Supreme Court CAP/Daniels decision affirmed that the people we represent are Indigenous under Section 91(24) of Canada’s Constitution. In 2016, the Supreme Court spoke but has Canada listened? CAP’s exclusion from Bill C-29 kicks sand in the face of the unanimous Supreme Court CAP/Daniels decision. The Senate needs to correct this and not allow Canada to continue to divide and cherry-pick the Indigenous people they want to work with. Our exclusion means that most Aboriginal people are forgotten. The results are clear social challenges in all areas, such as mass incarceration of our peoples — a continuing disgrace.

Just because our people move off reserve does not mean their trauma disappears. Reconciliation cannot be just for some; it must be for all. The decision to exclude our voices from Bill C-29 is discriminatory political gamesmanship. It triggers extreme trauma for our peoples who continue to experience abuse and social exclusion. By deliberately removing CAP from Bill C-29, the Government of Canada has decided that off-reserve voices are second-class to their brothers and sisters on reserve. This exclusion also goes against the TRC calls to include off-reserve Indigenous people in reconciliation.

Reconciliation requires the collective effort of all peoples and multiple generations. The decision to exclude the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples goes against all reconciliation efforts and makes a mockery of the process. With no guaranteed seat on the council, this legislation affirms that the government is politically choosing who Aboriginal peoples are, not the people themselves. Has Canada’s history taught us nothing?

Canada is silencing the voice of over 200,000 non-status Indians, 400,000 Métis not part of MNC and thousands of southern Inuit. None of these people are represented by any of the three politically chosen groups in Bill C-29. Reconciliation will not be successful if you only choose to work with some Indigenous peoples. History will judge this Parliament and the Senate on reconciliation. If we are to have reconciliation, these exclusions must stop. The Senate must amend this Bill to include CAP at the reconciliation table.

Meegwetch.

I now turn it over to Chief Lorraine Augustine.

The Chair: You have a minute and a half.

Lorraine Augustine, Board Director, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, and I’m coming to you from the Mi’kmaq territory in Nova Scotia.

A couple of points I want to add relate to section 35. In our constitution, our Aboriginal peoples mean “Indian, Inuit and Métis.” There is nowhere in the Constitution that says Aboriginal people are groups or organizations. I want to clarify that.

Secondly, I just want to also add that they are saying that Bill C-29 will create an independent, non-political body, but if you look at the composition of the board of directors, they’re saying that it will include someone from the Assembly of First Nations, someone from the Métis National Council, someone from the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and someone from the Native Women’s Association — four of the five organizations. When you are talking about leaving out the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, that is outright discrimination. It is exclusion of our people so they don’t have a voice. I’m sure you’re all aware of Article 18 in the UNDRIP, which is the basis for the TRC. It says that we have a right to determine who will represent us.

So when you talk about this independent non-political body, then the Government of Canada shouldn’t be, through this bill, appointing a board of directors. It should be the Indigenous peoples of this country who will decide reconciliation and who will be on that. As I heard a witness say before, you know what, we have to get away from this divide and conquer approach. We need to be working together as Indigenous peoples. Regardless of whether we live on a reserve, in a community or in the woods, we are all Indigenous peoples. I think we need to start looking at that and stop the divide and conquer approach that Canada has imposed on the Indigenous peoples in this country. We need to stop that.

The Chair: Thank you for that. We will go on to remarks by Ms. Formsma.

Jocelyn Formsma, Chief Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres: Wachay misiway. [Indigenous language spoken]. My name is Jocelyn Formsma from Moose Creek First Nation in Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario. I serve as the chief executive officer of the National Association of Friendship Centres. I am the daughter, granddaughter and niece of residential school attendees. While the term often used is “survivors,” the reality is both my grandparents, my mother and five of my seven aunts and uncles are now passed. Recently, I also learned that my mother attended day school. This work is important to me professionally and personally. I want to thank you for the invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and acknowledge that we are on unceded unsurrendered Algonquin territory.

The National Association of Friendship Centres is the national coordinating body for the friendship centre moment. We are a national civil society movement made up or First Nations, Inuit and Métis living in urban, rural and northern communities from coast to coast that has provided culture, community and connection for more than 60 years. Friendship centres have been the sites of reconciliation before that was a term being used. Collectively, we have been addressing and continue to address multiple Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action in every area including education, health care, access to justice and others.

As you may know, nationally, approximately 65 to 80% of Canada’s two million Indigenous peoples are living in urban settings. With growing numbers of Indigenous families raising their children in urban centres, the urban Indigenous population continues to expand at a rate four times fast than the non-Indigenous urban population. It is encouraging to see that Call to Action 53 and the Truth and Reconciliation final report is sought after as a main proponent within the proposed legislation that aims to officially create a national council for reconciliation in Bill C-29.

This specific Call to Action is particularly important because a mechanism should be in place to track the progress and implementation of these Calls to Action.

We understand the concerns of First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments and their comments thus far with respect to Bill C-29. Our intention today is not to undermine the testimony of those Indigenous governments who have engaged with this process but to provide some insight and perspectives from the over 1 million people who walk through the doors of our over 100-member friendship centres every year.

Although the principle of this council is to hold the Government of Canada to account in the reconciliation efforts, if passed, we are concerned that the national council for reconciliation will not have the political depth, resources and financial stability to effect impactful and meaningful change as well as transparent accountability.

We share the view that independence is of vital importance when it comes to the national council for reconciliation. The council is being created as an accountability mechanism and must be upheld as independent to achieve its set out goals. The council will monitor long-term progress and report on the implementation of the 94 Calls to Action. As we have been engaged throughout this process, I envision this council as a technical council made up of Indigenous people to organize, document, report and make recommendations on the implementation of the TRC’s Calls to Action. The focus needs to be on moving the reconciliation needle forward.

In my view, the TRC was wise in its approach to provide its report to everyone. It did not just give a report to government to put on a shelf. It implicated everyone: child welfare, law, education, justice and health care systems. It told us we all have a role to play in its implementation. I don’t see this council as doing the work of reconciliation, but to tell us how well these systems have been responding to and implementing these calls.

As mentioned at the beginning, this work is both professional and personal. Professionally, the movement that we represent has always supported survivors and continues to provide crucial and lifesaving resources for survivors and the children and grandchildren of residential school attendees and survivors. Personally, I witnessed my mother spend her lifetime healing from her experiences in residential schools. It’s now my responsibility to carry forward this work that she started in community healing.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to any questions that you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Formsma. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators. I’ll start off with my Deputy Chair, Senator Arnot.

Senator Arnot: Thank you Senator Francis, and thank you to all the witnesses that have come forward on this panel. I have a general question for each of the panellists to respond to in any way they wish.

I hear from the witnesses that they fully support the idea of creating a national council for reconciliation. What do you see as the primary challenges of the council concerning its mandate, structure or any other elements of the bill that you think need to be amended? I ask that to each of the witnesses.

Ms. Augustine: I think the biggest thing with this reconciliation council is that it has to be inclusive of all Indigenous peoples.

The way it’s now being presented, I believe it’s political by using just four organizations. If you’re going to go with the five organizations, then I believe that, through those organizations, we cannot leave out the other organizations — that is, the other women’s organizations and the friendship centres. It’s got to be inclusive.

If you’re going to discuss a reconciliation council, or a board, or however it comes out, it has to be inclusive. It cannot leave out the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It cannot leave out the Métis women. It cannot leave out Pauktuutit. It cannot leave out Inuit women. It’s got to be inclusive. It may be a large board, but we have to be there to speak for all Indigenous peoples, the way the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples tell us. We need to follow that. Canada needs to follow that. You have to be inclusive.

Mr. Beaudin: The other thing I would add is with respect to the council’s accountability. I see there being to be a lot of pressure on the council in terms of addressing some of their recommendations in the TRC report. The government has to be accountable. There has to be a mechanism to ensure that they address all the things that are put forward — there’s no question about it — or there won’t be reconciliation. That’s the big thing that I see. Thank you.

Ms. Formsma: I share the same view. I think the challenge will be for this council to manage expectations and to find the right people to fill these positions. I mentioned how I envisioned this council. My advice to the transition committee was that I wanted this to be a “boring” council where people came together, got their work done and people could say, “By and large, they’re doing a good job.” This shouldn’t be a council made up of names or people that were there only to be a name. This really should be a hard-working council to see things through and be creative in its approaches.

I think the challenge will be to manage expectations. As was mentioned by a previous witness, it’s not going to be everything to everyone. I think that’s why people are putting such importance on the makeup of the council. I also agree that it should be as non-political as possible to allow the work to happen so that it can be a creative and independent council.

Senator Tannas: Ms. Formsma, I’m delighted to see you here. I don’t know if you know on purpose how often you say the word “work.”

It is true that you are the brand of friendship centres in that sense: the work gets done. There’s an old saying: When talking comes to doing, lots of times there isn’t much doing, just more talking. Those in your organization are the doers, so thank you for being here.

I was also struck by what you said about what you felt — I presume having informed yourself of the Calls to Action — the role of the commission was, which was not to tell people how to do reconciliation but to measure its progress. That’s, I think, a very powerful sentence. Thank you for that.

To the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, do you sense that off-reserve, urban Indigenous people are somehow being ignored here? Or do you think that the AFN representative and those that are members place equal weight on their members that live off reserve?

Mr. Beaudin: I’ve been the national chief of CAP for the past 6.5 years. Prior to that, I was on the board of directors of CAP as well. I can tell you that the direction that the government has gone in is really focused on reserve bands. They’re looking to them in terms of policies, but the majority of our people live off reserve, in addition to the people that are forgotten about, non-status Indians, for example, who don’t fit the narrative in terms of policies with respect to treaties and that kind of thing. They were actually left out of treaties, but they were part of treaties at one time. This is what is happening.

I’m going to personally add something as well. My mother, my grandparents and I come from a band that was enfranchised in 1958. We were forcibly removed off the land by Villeneuve, Alberta. It was a 40-square chunk of land, and it was gone. Our community, our relations, ended up scrambling all over Canada. Presently, we have 1,300 members on that general band membership list of Alberta all over Canada, including the United States. That one thing that the government did removed a whole community.

There are other enfranchised bands in Canada as well. The same thing happened to them. There are general band lists of people in each province. In terms of policy, these are the kinds of things that affect our people from a grassroots perspective.

Senator Tannas: Thank you very much. I hope I didn’t ask an indelicate question, but thank you for your candid answer. I appreciate it.

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our witnesses online. Are you in Truro online there?

Ms. Augustine: Yes.

Senator Coyle: I thought so. I think I remember your backdrop there. Ms. Augustine and I live about an hour apart.

This has been very helpful. Ms. Augustine, you talked about this council, first and foremost, needing to be inclusive, and I don’t think anybody would argue with that principle. There’s been too much exclusion. In fact, to perpetuate that exclusion would be the kiss of death for anything that we’re trying to help get off the ground here.

What I think that everybody is struggling with, though, is what does that mean practically in terms of who will be in a position to name somebody on the council? Who will that council report to? Yes, it will report to various parts of the government, but in terms of reporting back to Indigenous people in Canada as well, which we’ve been hearing about as being something important. Being inclusive of those people who live in the four Inuit territories, inclusive of the Métis women, men, et cetera, the First Nations people on- and off-reserve, is what you mean by inclusive. But how do you practically accomplish that? Could you speak to that, and could our other guests speak to that as well?

Ms. Augustine: Absolutely, and thank you for your question.

When it comes to who is going to sit on the board or whatever, it’s got to go back to the communities. It’s the communities that look at who is going to best speak on their behalf. It’s no different than the community who elects their chief and council. It’s no different.

For example, with the CAP, it would be the communities through their affiliates that would say, “This is the best person to sit on this, do the work and bring it back to the communities.”

It’s got to be driven from the ground up. It cannot be dictated from the top down. That hasn’t worked in the past, and it’s not going to work in the future. The community has to be involved, because they don’t have a say. They don’t know what’s going on. They don’t know that we’re working on their behalf. It’s got to be from the ground up.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

Ms. Formsma: I have some experience sitting on an independent advisory committee that provides advice to a minister on whom to appoint. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations would be the one to appoint, as per the act.

How you get around that in a way that is community-driven, I don’t know if we have that mechanism yet in Canada. I would imagine it should be by and for our own people to choose this council. I don’t know if an independent advisory committee quite gets that, because I think the caveat will be that it’s always the decision of the minister, and even if the minister was an Indigenous person — exactly, you get that.

Good luck. I don’t want to make light of it, but there definitely needs to be a new mechanism developed that is by and for Indigenous people and will have to take account of the views of the communities and, as you said, all those intersectionalities and layered identities, and in addition, all of the sectors which are implicated in the Calls to Action, such as business, justice, education; you would want there to be some expertise in all those areas.

The last thing I would note is also the process to apply and be a part of it. That’s a process that I’ve seen be completely inaccessible to Indigenous peoples. Sitting on Indigenous boards of directors, I’ve had amazing applications by incredible Indigenous people who have served as wonderful board members, and then you switch that into this Crown process, and suddenly you don’t see those same applications coming through, because it’s not a very clear process as to how that’s done.

In addition to who selects, I would also like to see some thought given to how we create that process so that people who want to serve on this council actually have the ability to put their name forward.

Senator Coyle: Kind of like senators.

The Chair: Thank you. I remind our witnesses, if there’s more testimony that you want to provide, and you don’t have the time tonight, certainly feel free to put it in writing to the clerk by the end of the week.

Senator Audette: Thank you very much to the witnesses.

For me, I’m part of the debate of who represents whom. I was with Quebec Native Women and the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and it was clear to me that I do not represent all the women. We are born with a voice and empowerment. We wish that they empower themselves, but I was representing the membership, like you mentioned, Mr. Beaudin. Words are very powerful and very important, and I believe that everybody has a place in that work and in that circle.

However, in Quebec, where I’m from, it’s hard for me to accept that somebody pretends to represent me. I’m 51 years old, and I want to choose who represents me. However, if we can change those words — The Superior Court of Québec denied the Alliance Autochtones du Québec, because they said they are a nation, and they want to have a voice.

How do we bring the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, knowing that in my own territory, there is that debate? I think there’s a conversation. I don’t want to close the door, but there’s a frank discussion of how we can make sure, so maybe you have a suggestion to propose. There are “pretendians” everywhere. I don’t want to say it’s the case, but it’s in every region, not only in Alliance. How do we prevent that? They’re taking the space of Indigenous people — university, college. Maybe you have that perspective, Mr. Beaudin, National Vice-Chief. Thank you.

Mr. Beaudin: That issue with respect to pretendians that you referred to, that’s a discussion we have had as a board of directors, and it’s an important issue to us. We don’t want that happening. Our provincial-territorial organizations have a process in place to ensure that doesn’t happen, and we believe that it’s working.

I want to go back to a couple things as well, in terms of solutions. We signed an accord in 2018 with Canada. That was supposed to be a bilateral process and relationship, and really, it hasn’t quite lived up to what we thought it was going to be. For example, why are we here today? If we were named in here, we would not be here today. We would be part of the whole process. That hasn’t happened.

Canada seems to be dropping the ball with respect to all those issues I’m referring to, and it’s important.

In terms of the community itself or the council, we definitely need to be there, because it will exclude the 80% of people who live off reserve, are Indigenous and live in large urban areas.

I hope I answered it as much as I can, because we’re getting to the delicate issues, when you talk about pretend Indians and that kind of thing, and it should be part of a broader discussion as well. That’s another thing. Thank you for that question.

Senator Audette: Thank you.

Senator Sorensen: We’ve been hearing from a lot of witnesses, and we’re spending so much time talking about the membership of this group, which is clearly a very important issue for the witnesses that we’re hearing from.

We keep talking about these four organizations that have been given a guaranteed seat by the other place. As I understand it, there are nine more seats, if we go with the number 13. I certainly don’t know if 13 is the right number. I don’t know who came up with 13. Theoretically, another nine seats are available.

The discussion of the board makeup seems to be the desire to have a guaranteed seat, especially because there’s no certainty in terms of how the other seats are going to be allocated or what the filters will be to allocate those seats.

I agree with Ms. Augustine and others that the council needs to be inclusive. In an effort to save the work that’s been done — so that we’re not going to throw all this work away, because we have made some steps forward — and get the country moving on the work that is so crucial, I’m opening it up for the opinion of the witnesses, but I’m also asking for the members of the committee to think about this: If further consultation is what is needed, would the strongest recommendation from the Senate be that there needs to be an Indigenous-led consultation, with knowledge-keepers and others who need to be there, in regard to providing the names for all the seats? Again, the idea would be for an Indigenous-led consultation to come back and say, “Here is who we think should be on the board.” I don’t know if that’s before we pass Bill C-29 or after we pass Bill C-29. However, there’s so much time spent on who is going to be sitting there that I’m concerned that we’re not going to get to the work of the council as we worry about who will be sitting there.

It’s more of a comment than a question, but I would be pleased to hear from any of the witnesses.

Ms. Formsma, you started to go down that road in terms of the mechanism to fill the seats. Thank you.

Ms. Formsma: If I could respond quickly to that. It’s not my decision as how to implement that process and the consultation. From our perspective, it’s important to make sure that any process that is put in place is accessible. The communities and people whom we serve have varying relationships with their nations — First Nations, Métis and Inuit — and their respective governments. Some have strong connections and others not so much, due to disrupted relationships and sometimes because of residential schools.

For any process that is undertaken for the selection of the council, or if there’s more consultation, we need to ensure an accessible process. Going directly through the nations, yes, absolutely. In our experience and observation, it’s important to that there is a robust urban process to ensure that folks who are urban-based are able to access it, and the same goes for rural communities that are off reserve or outside of Métis settlement areas or Inuit Nunangat, for the same reasons.

Senator Sorensen: Ms. Augustine, do you have anything to add?

Ms. Augustine: First of all, as the discussion has continued, I’ve heard a lot of witnesses on this issue as well. We always seem to be talking about leaving out the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which has been around for over 50 years. It’s time that we stopped worrying about the composition. If you’re going to have this, you need to include the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. If that’s not an issue, if that’s not doable, or if that’s not where it’s headed, then I think we should go back and have real consultation with all Indigenous peoples, which did not happen in this country. It’s discriminating to continue to hear that the congress is not part of this.

Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.

I wanted to return to the statement that Mr. Beaudin made about off reserve. In Manitoba, we don’t have CAP; we have another organization headed by Damon Johnston. They work with 37 organizations. I know because I work with them. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has an office, the Urban Eagle Transition Centre. They look after people in the urban area with homes, jobs and finances. They also look after the prisoners coming out of Stony Mountain Institution. The tribal councils, which we work with, also look after urban. They do a lot of work, but I know that urban-based have been left out of this.

You can respond in writing. Could you give us a rundown of the work you’ve accomplished in your organizations? What does reconciliation look like for off reserve, especially when there’s no land base? That’s part of reconciliation within themselves. I’ve had young people come to me and say, “I don’t feel Indigenous enough because I’m not on the land, and I don’t speak the language.” What does reconciliation look like for the people you work with off reserve?

I have the same concern about verifying membership because of the increase in identity fraud and problems with self-identification. You said you have a process. When you provide your written response, could you include your process? You just said that you have a process. I think we need to understand, and I don’t understand what CAP does. I have never seen the work that’s done, because it’s not in Manitoba. There’s a group, but it’s very small.

I have seen the work with the friendship centres. I have witnessed it in the North and all over Manitoba.

There is a problem with off-reserve representation. We also need to somehow get the statistics for off reserve. You said that 80% are excluded. I would disagree with that. We need the statements. Maybe the minister’s office can provide the statistics. I was looking at the off-reserve and on-reserve, and Manitoba has the highest number in the 2021 census. I think it’s 121,000.

If we could get that information, it would give us a better idea of the programs you deliver and the outcomes you’ve reached. We’re not looking at organizations that are going to keep people dependent. They’re going to be growing, reconciling with themselves and moving on. If we get that information, we’ll have a better idea of what we should recommend. I’m not a member of this committee. I’m just sitting in.

The Chair: As Senator McCallum mentioned to our witnesses, if you could provide the information in writing to the clerk ASAP, preferably by the end of the week, that would be greatly appreciated.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Mr. Beaudin, to echo some of my colleagues’ comments, in many ways it’s uncomfortable talking about membership. Nothing that is said here takes away from the work that you’ve done. Nothing takes away from Harry Daniels’ work in the Supreme Court, which was such an important case for all of us, speaking as a Métis from Alberta.

When we talk about rights holders, we look to section 35. We see the three groups that are identified as constitutional rights holders.

Ms. Augustine talked about divide and conquer. The questions then become who is an Indian, who is a Métis and who is an Inuit? Then we start talking about our membership processes. So I asked President Omeniho, how does the Métis Nation of Alberta figure out their membership process and the rigour that goes into that?

The reason we stumble around with CAP is that there is no apparent membership process — maybe you can help me — and so the first question is how does CAP figure out its membership?

I’ll put a caveat on that. My husband is a member of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation in Alberta. I am a Métis person. We live urban, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t feel represented or that we don’t have a voice in our own representative organizations. I feel like we’re part of the number that you’re including.

I’m trying to figure out, how do you delineate your members? And how do the members participate in electing or determining your executive?

Mr. Beaudin: I want to be very clear with respect to the process in terms of membership. We’ve been working with the federal government on that issue. We’ve been working with them for years in terms of ensuring that the boxes are checked off properly, that they are from their communities — all those issues that have come up in the media. That’s number one. I’m not sure people even know that, but we have been working with Canada on that issue.

Each provincial-territorial organization, actually does that. It’s a question that has been raised numerous times. Quite frankly, we get tired of it because we put a lot of work into that.

You just referred to where you’re from, a Métis community in Alberta. We include people who have not been included, like non-status Indians, for example. A non-status Indian is someone who had a treaty relationship with Canada, but Canada chose not to honour those treaties.

In terms of Métis, there is an argument now with respect to Red River Métis. That’s another issue that has come up; that will be another discussion with Canada about how to deal with that, because they’re not here. Their voice is not here. My father was a Red River Métis. I’m from that community as well on my dad’s side.

The majority of our board are section 35 and treaty rights holders. But I feel uncomfortable when people say AFN, ITK or whoever are right holders as an organization. I don’t see them that way at all. The communities are rights holders. That’s who holds the rights, not AFN, not even CAP. We never said that to anybody. I want to make that really clear. It’s a message that we need to get out loud and clear. Thank you for that question.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I agree that the community — for my husband, it’s Beaver Lake Cree Nation — is the reason he is part of this rights-holder community. It derives from the community that he is a part of. I agree with that.

I know that the Daniels case helped to affirm the rights of non‑status Indians, and Métis people by the way, but that was a landmark case for non-status Indians.

I do think that to be a representative organization, we have to understand who you represent. There has to be a straight line to the membership as far as numbers. This is what Senator McCallum was getting at. Those numbers don’t seem to jibe for some Indigenous people who are working in our communities.

This is not the place, but it would be interesting to have you come back so you could help us to understand. One thing the Senate always does is include CAP — and the friendship centres, by the way. I think the House of Commons invites you as well. I feel good that your voice is heard here at least.

Mr. Beaudin: I want to add a comment in terms of the government and their consultations with CAP. It’s been piecemeal at best in the last number of years.

The other thing I want to stress is that we argued the very thing you’re bringing up, first at the federal level and then at the Supreme Court level. They were asking the same questions. “Whom do you represent? Who are your people?” We brought all that documentation. We affirmed who we were, and it was a 9-0 ruling. Again, if people don’t understand what the ruling was all about, we certainly have the documents to give to you. That argument was settled in 2016.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That’s about right holders. Was that Supreme Court case about CAP?

Mr. Beaudin: Yes. CAP is the one that brought it forward because of the argument, the political football. I heard Senator Brazeau bring it up here as well. We talked about the political football between the provinces and Canada. We finally understood that Canada was ultimately responsible for all Indigenous people in Canada under section 91(24) — all. We always stress that, so thank you for that.

Senator Audette: It would be nice if you could send us the document that you’re talking about, the Supreme Court case.

Do you remember the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples? There were three examples of urban governance proposed. That is something you could send us, also. Thank you very much.

The Chair: We have a few more minutes. Any questions?

Ms. Formsma: I don’t have a question. It’s just to note, for your knowledge, that as part of both the interim national council and the transitional council, Edith Cloutier was a member of both. She is a long-time Executive Director of the Val-d’Or Native Friendship Centre. She is a highly respected Anishnaabe francophone woman from northern Quebec. Throughout the process, she has ensured that urban voice was considered throughout the development of the work of the councils, as well as within the legislation.

When the initial draft was put forward, we did feel comfortable. If there were seats to hand out, sure, we’ll have one, but we felt it was more important for that council to be including as many diverse Indigenous identities as possible and that it would be inclusive of urban. I believe, in the document, that is referenced as one of the things to consider. Thank you for letting me share that.

The Chair: Thank you for that. Our time is complete. I wish to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Please send any outstanding answers to the clerk in writing before the end of the week.

(The committee adjourned.)