THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 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’kmaq 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.
Senator Arnot: I’m Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Hartling: I’m Senator Hartling from New Brunswick, from the Mi’kmaq territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good morning, [Innu-Aimun spoken]. I am Michèle Audette, and I represent the senatorial division of De Salaberry, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
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 now like to introduce our first panel of witnesses: from the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Youth, Spokesperson Kananish McKenzie; from the National Inuit Youth Council, President Brian Pottle; and from the Canadian Roots Exchange, Executive Director Hillory Tenute. 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 with senators. To keep us on time and to ensure equity to all, once you have reached the four-minute mark in your time, I will hold up this sign to advise that you have one minute left. Hopefully, we won’t have to cut anyone off.
I will now invite Kananish McKenzie to give her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Kananish McKenzie, Spokesperson, First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Youth: Good morning, [Indigenous language spoken].
Senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, we were invited today to share our views on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. Since the bill seeks to implement Call to Action 53 in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report, we welcome the creation of a national council.
However, given the bill as it currently stands, we are concerned that it does not take into account the perspectives of youth. Subclause 12(1) seeks to ensure, to the extent possible, representation from youth, elders, survivors, organizations, women, men and gender-diverse persons. In our view, the term “to the extent possible” is not binding enough. It is important to make certain that the national council represents those many voices.
In our view, first nations, Inuit and Métis youth must have a seat. Under the board of directors’ nomination process, youth should have a dedicated seat on the board.
The other issue we would like to bring to the Senate committee’s attention today is the level of Indigenous representation on the national council. Obviously, reconciliation requires the participation of both Indigenous people and non‑Indigenous people. For that reconciliation to work, it must be defined and led by our nations. We are of the view that subclause 11(1) should be amended to stipulate that all board members be Indigenous persons. This national council is important to us and to our future, so it must have an Indigenous board of directors.
I would be happy to answer the committee’s questions, but the most important thing remains the makeup of the national council for reconciliation. Thank you, [Indigenous language spoken].
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. McKenzie. I will now invite Brian Pottle to give his opening remarks.
Brian Pottle, President, National Inuit Youth Council: Thank you, senators, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. On the topic of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, there have been concerns brought forward by Inuit leadership already — by President Natan Obed of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK — that I will not repeat. We have the same concerns.
There are some overarching ones, though, that do remain, even for Inuit youth: representation and concerns around the actual implementation and structuring of the council, including the potential delineation — or making sure there is delineation — of the role and reach of the council so that there is minimal interference in, for example, the very unique and very important Inuit–Crown Partnership Committee that Inuit leadership has with federal government leadership. If we establish a council that is overseeing reconciliation on a national level, it becomes important to ask, for example, if the Inuit–Crown Partnership Committee becomes part of the umbrella. How do we protect against undoing or potentially stymieing progress that Inuit have been making and continue to make in partnership with the federal government in the spirit of reconciliation?
Further, in my neck of the woods in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where I currently reside, there is some interesting controversy surrounding the president of Memorial University of Newfoundland who, over the many years of their very esteemed career, had claimed Indigenous ancestry. This was investigated by the CBC and was, in fact, effectively debunked. That led to their effective ousting from the presidency role of the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Therefore, the question I put to the Senate with regard to Bill C-29 is how do we safeguard against similar concerns? How do we safeguard against appointees to the council, for example, being in a similar situation as the former president of Memorial University of Newfoundland? How do we protect against people claiming indigeneity — claiming Indigenous ancestry — more or less fraudulently for the gain that comes with that today?
Of course, this is a very contemporary problem, one that is actually engendered by such acts as Bill C-29 where there is now a sense of gain to be made from certain aspects of Indigenous opportunity, so that needs to be reflected as well. We need to safeguard against those who are seeking to benefit from the very recent and very contemporary benefits of being Indigenous today in Canada and make sure such individuals do not find themselves being leaders of this national council. It would be remiss if somebody in charge of reconciliation was, in fact, claiming to be Indigenous and was, in fact, not.
Finally, I echo the previous statement of Ms. McKenzie wherein they mentioned that there needs to be, for sure, a youth voice. Whether it is pan-Indigenous or distinctions-based, there needs to be the youth voice as well.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pottle. I now invite Hillory Tenute to make opening remarks.
Hillory Tenute, Executive Director, Canadian Roots Exchange: Aaniin Boozhoo, Bagamibizo Gichi-noodinkwe Aaptii Beebom Nigig-kwe, Hillory dishnikaaz, Neyaashiinigmiingndo njibaa, Ottawa ndo daa, nigig dodem.
My name is Hillory Tenute, and I am a proud Anishinaabekwe with settler descent from the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation, part of the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen territory. My pronouns are she/her, they/them. Chi-meegwetch. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I also want to thank my friends here today who have already spoken.
CRE is a national Indigenous youth-led organization that envisions a future where Indigenous youth are empowered and connected as dynamic leaders in vibrant and thriving communities. We support the establishment of an independent and Indigenous-led national council for reconciliation, one that would be responsible for monitoring and advancing reconciliation in what we now call Canada in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, Call to Action 53.
The recommendations I will outline today are informed by the number of engagement opportunities that our organization is still fortunate to have with Indigenous youth from coast to coast to coast.
Something we often hear in our engagements is that there is a fundamental lack of trust in the federal government’s ability to hear the voices of youth. As another organization working to fulfill the vision of TRC Call to Action 66, CRE is continually reminded by the youth we serve that TRC is legacy work that is meant to support Indigenous youth to thrive and create the futures they hope to see for their communities.
Our support for this council is conditional on Indigenous youth being meaningfully included in its leadership and governance structures and on the council being properly capacitated.
Indigenous youth have seen the federal government make promises about reconciliation and then fall short on taking action. It is time that we ensure they have a meaningful role in leading this work.
As the current and future leaders in their communities, Indigenous youth have a key role to play in ensuring every aspect of the council’s goals are met. Their perspectives and priorities must be meaningfully woven into the leadership and governance structure of this council.
Formal collaborations with Indigenous youth-led organizations, similar to CRE and so many others, will be invaluable to ensuring the success of the council. The work of this council will impact Indigenous youth today and Indigenous youth for the next seven generations.
We also know that two-spirit and LGBTQ+ Indigenous peoples have been historically and contemporarily excluded from leadership roles and decision-making processes impacting them. They have experienced the effects of colonization in distinct ways and their knowledge, expertise and presence are vital in all conversations about reconciliation.
In keeping with Call to Action 54, CRE echoes the calls of other Indigenous organizations for Bill C-29 to include provisions for core, multi-year funding. This is crucial in ensuring true independence of the council and that the council has the necessary resources to continue the important work they’ve been tasked with for years to come.
A well-resourced council will also be positioned to better support organizations — like CRE, 4Rs Youth Movement, the National Association of Friendship Centres, Assembly of Seven Generations and We Matter, to name a few — whose work is built around fulfilling the Calls to Action, most notably Call to Action 66. With innumerable positive impacts that are met constantly with systemic barriers to secure long-term funding, this work cannot be put at risk by inadequate or unstable funding.
No matter the issue, Indigenous youth are always firm that an independent, Indigenous-led watchdog is needed to keep governments accountable to the goals of reconciliation and to keep Indigenous communities informed. This means ensuring that the council has the legislative power it needs to access the data needed to properly monitor the state of reconciliation.
In order to ensure Indigenous youth voices, needs and realities are guided by the council, we suggest one of the following options: (a) That clause 11 be amended to mandate that at least three of the Indigenous directors must be between the ages of 18 and 29; or (b) That the board of directors establish an Indigenous youth steering committee to work in tandem with the board of directors.
We also recommend, first, that you amend clause 11 to add that at least three of the directors must be two-spirit and/or LGBTQ+; and, second, that you ensure Bill C-29 includes core, multi-year funding provisions that capacitate it to undertake its mandate and to ensure true independence.
Third, we also echo the calls of other Indigenous organizations to ensure that the newly established council has the legislative power it needs to access any data and reports to properly monitor the state of reconciliation.
Indigenous youth deserve to see real action on reconciliation and to lead and be a part of this important legacy work. The historical effect of so many leaders moving the TRC Calls to Action along is a legacy. It is a bundle that needs to be protected, sustained and viewed as sacred. Their knowledge, leadership and hope for future generations can only enrich the work of the council and ensure that dialogue, thought and action on reconciliation is innovative.
Chi-meegwetch for your time and for giving Indigenous youth voices a space today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Tenute. Now we will open the floor for questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Welcome to the witnesses here today. You are advocating for an important youth voice at the national council for reconciliation. Between 9 and 13 board members are contemplated. Ms. Tenute has spoken to this issue. We’ve also heard that it might be advisable to create an elders’ council or an elders’ group inside the organization. I think Ms. Tenute talked about the same concept by having what she called a steering committee.
Would any of the witnesses like to comment on how you incorporate those voices? As a platform for youth voices and the wide array of youth voices across Canada, to accommodate the intersectionality you talked about, should there be a youth advisory group be attached to the council?
Perhaps you can talk about this as well. You have said that you support a national council. Do you see a need for any critical amendments to the act? My impression from what you are saying is you don’t want to wait for Bill C-29 to be perfect. You want to get moving on this and don’t want to wait years to find the perfect model because the perfect could be the enemy of the good. If there are critical amendments, what would they be?
Ms. Tenute: In terms of implementing a youth advisory council or advisory group, I absolutely agree with having more representation of residential school survivors and elders. When we want to look at true and informed leadership models that are reflective of Indigenous principles and that seven generational thinking, it really does need to incorporate both the youth and elders as a whole. I think the integration of that has to come from engagement first. There is a wonderful and beautiful Indigenous youth population, the fastest growing population in what we now call Canada. There are a lot of new ideas that can be placed to sustain long-term and innovative governance thinking and policy practices. I think this is vital not only to the success of this council but also to the long-term sustainability of this council. This is their legacy work. We need to have them at the table today so they are able to make better informed decisions for their next seven generations as well.
In terms of the other question, I have one thing to add and then I’ll allow my other colleagues to answer it. I can only speak for our own organization, but as an organization that is working to fulfill the vision of Call to Action 66, we see every day the benefits to many different organizations and individuals working towards similar goals. There are lots of other Indigenous youth organizations that are doing this work and most notably at the grassroots level. Although our approaches may be different, they are all valuable and important. This work requires many hands and must move sooner rather than later.
One of the pieces we often champion for the youth we are so fortunate to work with is that we need to strike while the iron is hot. It is important to make these amendments, as I suggested, but also to carry on this work and not delay it any further.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to jump in? We have about a minute left.
Mr. Pottle: You asked two questions. One was about this youth adjacent kind of advisory group. It is a continual issue that youth are not, in this case, literally at the table, like I am. They are oftentimes adjacent to the table, on the periphery. It’s important that youth have a direct voice on the council.
On the second point where you asked about any critical changes, we need to ensure there are safeguards. As I mentioned, there’s a growing problem of people claiming Indigenous ancestry and reaping the benefits that come with that, the very new benefits. There need to be measures to safeguard against that.
As well, there is the concern of whether the bill absolves the federal government of being directly involved with reconciliation by the creation of this council. That’s not clear to me.
That’s the question I have. I’m sorry that I can’t propose a change, but that’s it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
I remind our witnesses that if you have additional testimony you would like to submit in writing after we are done here today, feel free to do so, if it can be done by the end of this week.
Senator Hartling: Thank you all for being here today. Our committee values the voices of youth, and we have some activities coming up next week with youth. You are helping us to look deeper at some of these issues. For sure, your voices need to be there.
I was thinking about the ideas you proposed about an advisory committee versus being at the table. Is there some way that could be done in terms of somebody at the table who comes back to the steering committee?
What would be some of the issues that youth feel are important to bring to the table? Anybody who would like to answer. Thank you.
Mr. Pottle: As was echoed by my co-witnesses here, there is, in fact, disenfranchisement of the younger population in Canada. A lot of youth mistrust the government. More work needs to be done with regard to re-establishing that trust. It is easy to see, given the current state of affairs. If you go to any reserve or small community in Nunangat, you will see the systemic issues of outsiders and people who live there, locals. More needs to be done to re-establish or grow that trust in the federal government.
Ms. Tenute: I want to echo that. That was well said. I think it is part of that accountability piece we see in the lack of trust in the government. As we know, this is a systemic issue that takes place as of the first day of colonization.
That being said, I do think that meaningful and proper engagement practices on behalf of the government, working in partnership with other organizations that have built that trust, could be a better, more fulsome approach before a truly established council is set or through an advisory group mechanism. There are a number of different Indigenous organizations that do this work and that would be exceptional at it. As I said earlier, this is one of the fastest-growing populations. There are a lot of issues that we need to unpack and a lot of trust that needs to be built. That takes time, commitment, care and respect.
The Chair: Ms. McKenzie, anything to add?
[Translation]
Ms. McKenzie: Ultimately, I agree with what the other witnesses said. A challenge youth often face today is that they aren’t given enough opportunities to have their say. My advice, as a spokesperson, is to give youth a space to share how they see things. Listening to the voice of youth is a positive step.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being so engaged and for speaking up and presenting on behalf of all youth — of course, in your world, Indigenous youth — on this and many other issues.
The makeup of this council has obviously dominated all of our meetings. I’m asking each of you to quickly comment. Ms. McKenzie made the statement that while she respects the idea that non-Indigenous people have to be very involved in reconciliation, perhaps having non-Indigenous people on this council — and I don’t want to put words into your mouth — is not necessary. You can clarify, Ms. McKenzie, if you need to.
I would like to know what other people think about that. When there seems to be quite a demand for the seats — and we don’t know how many seats there will be; I don’t remember if there was a certain number — do others agree that putting non‑Indigenous people on the council would actually be taking seats away from the conversation that needs to happen among Indigenous people?
With regard to the suggestion by Ms. Tenute and the Canadian Roots Exchange on youth participating, the suggestion of three people between 18 and 29, of course, takes quite a few of those potential seats. There’s nothing wrong with that. There can be double representation of others.
On the concept of the advisory council, I think Mr. Pottle said it would make more sense to have them on the committee. Regardless of amendments or policy or what it says, if that were not to occur, could your organizations not come together and proactively create a youth council that could deliver information to the board through grassroots development of your own council? I understand that a recognition of it would be more appropriate, but if that doesn’t happen, in the name of moving this forward, is that not something you could perhaps build independently and then provide feedback to?
I’d like to hear from all of you. Ms. McKenzie, do you want to start and qualify your comment on the non-Indigenous side?
[Translation]
Ms. McKenzie: Regarding the seats of Indigenous people on the board of directors, we feel it’s important that all Indigenous groups in Canada be represented. Of course, we believe that reconciliation involves both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.
That said, because the national council deals with issues that affect Indigenous people, it should have a large number of Indigenous members with the skills and expertise to sit on the board of directors. In our view, what’s important is ensuring that Indigenous representation on the board. It will go a long way towards making sure Indigenous people have a voice. Working with non-Indigenous people is a good idea, but they shouldn’t be on the board.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Ms. Tenute, did you want to comment on the idea of a grassroots swell, if necessary?
Ms. Tenute: I think that is a fantastic opportunity. When we look at Call to Action 66, for example, part of that Call to Action is building a network where I think something like this would be more suited.
As Indigenous organizations, we are much stronger together when it comes to dismantling these systems of oppression but also advocating for Indigenous youth because our work is informed by Indigenous youth.
That being said, I’m open to this. I would hope there would be long-term secured funding for something like this to pay for the hard work and voices of Indigenous folks to carry on this legacy work.
Senator Sorensen: Thanks. I want to comment on your recommendations around funding and legislative power to receive data. We have heard that many times and certainly agree. Do you have a comment on Indigenous or non-Indigenous members? Perhaps Mr. Pottle would like to comment on that.
Mr. Pottle: In regard to the issue of seats that you raised in the beginning, of course, having non-Indigenous representatives at the table naturally detracts representation from Indigenous representatives. I understand the federal government may need to appoint representatives. Ultimately, if this is going to be a group that ascertains whether or not reconciliation has, in fact, been achieved, Indigenous people should be the ones predominantly making these decisions.
Secondly, on your topic of whether there could be a groundswell of this grassroots movement, of course. However, why should that be tangential to this? Shouldn’t this be incorporated? This is an opportunity. Hypothetically, we could have the youth voice and an adjacent panel, as discussed before, perhaps with a youth standing committee that would inform the youth representative on the board for reconciliation. It should not be separate. This should not be something that we have to take on. Oftentimes youth don’t have the capacity in the first place to do this, so it is not a fair assertion. Notwithstanding the great work of Canadian Roots Exchange and other organizations, it is a lot of work and a lot of pressure.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much to all of our witnesses this morning for the concrete and constructive suggestions that you’ve put forward, including actual amendments. Thank you also for the work that you do.
Younger people’s voices and perspectives are critical to everything we do here. As you have rightly pointed out, if you’re looking at population numbers, one of the fastest-growing groups in Canada is our Indigenous population. For those youth who are with us today and those who are coming up, it’s your future and their future that we’re talking about here. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
My first question is for Mr. Pottle. You raised the point about the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee and the advances that are being made. They are never fast enough or full enough; however, there are some advances. We heard that from ITK, and thank you for reiterating that.
In terms of delineating the role and reach of the council so that the important work of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee is protected and so that progress can continue, can you dig a little deeper into that delineation and how you would see concretely the possibilities for that happening? We don’t want to advance any legislation here at this table where we don’t have the full endorsement of the Inuit people of Canada.
Mr. Pottle: Thank you. This is something that I’m not wholly qualified to answer, I would say. I’m the youth rep. I’m out as the youth president next week, when there is an election.
I will say that when it comes to a national council overseeing reconciliation, we have the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee that is directly Inuit and federal leadership. This partnership between Inuit and the Crown is unique amongst the Indigenous demographics across Canada.
If we have a council that’s in charge of reconciliation, it’s quite possible that the opposite will happen, that the Inuit-Crown partnership model will become applied through the council to then benefit First Nations and Métis as well, in a similar kind of lateral partnership.
When it comes to actually delineating it, it’s too early to tell what the implementation will look like. You’ve heard many great points from other panels, and especially today from my colleagues, about the concerns they’ve raised in terms of the shortcomings in the youth aspect. It’s hard to tell at this stage what exactly can be done to maintain the progress that has been made.
Of course, there is a concern in terms of where exactly the federal government’s responsibility ends. Does the national council give the federal government manoeuvrability in deferring future works to the council? This is under the umbrella of reconciliation. It’s hard to say.
These are conversations that will need to be had at the Inuit‑Crown Partnership Committee level but also in the bigger picture as we try to establish this national council. By the way, I don’t think this should just be pushed through. It is worth ironing out all the big concerns that have been raised, for example, by President Obed of ITK, as I mentioned earlier.
Until these things are addressed and these bigger concerns are answered, there is potential for conflict in terms of the intent of the national council and ongoing work between Inuit and the federal government — and potentially, of course, between First Nations, Métis and the government as well. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much, [Innu-Aimun spoken], to our president, and [Innu-Aimun spoken]. I was proud to see a young Inuk here. We have a number of witnesses from Quebec. I have no idea what your views are, so it’s a real pleasure to hear what you have to say.
Are you comfortable with the consultation component? If the council is created one day, it will have to consult you all over the country. References to youth, the expertise of the next generation and so forth could certainly be added. I already have some amendments in mind in that regard.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their remarks. Yes, there are political challenges, with some leaders being against the idea. That said, thanks to the bill, we will know, on a daily basis, from the federal government where our children are in relation to education, where Indigenous students across Canada stand in terms of educational outcomes — successes and failures — where the research needed to influence federal policies stands and so forth.
Do you think the purpose and functions set out in the bill will have a significant impact on the well-being and betterment of our youth both within and outside communities?
Ms. McKenzie: Thank you, Michèle. On the subject of consultation, it’s also very important to consult youth, as we see. There may be a gap in that regard. I think youth consultation will be important within the national council. In terms of what you talked about and whether we are comfortable with the purpose and functions proposed, I think that will help. It definitely will. However, I think youth need to be consulted. Sometimes that is lacking, but I think it’s important to incorporate that into the council.
Senator Audette: Thank you, [Innu-Aimun spoken].
[English]
The Chair: The floor is still open for any senator who would like to ask a question. Seeing none, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
Colleagues, I would like to take a moment to welcome students from the Centre régional d’éducation des adultes Kitci Amik in Pikogan, Quebec, who are with us in the room. Welcome. They’re here as part of a visit coordinated by SENgage, the Senate youth outreach program. We all know committees are an important part of the legislative process, and I’m glad the students are with us today to learn more about Parliament’s inner workings. Again, welcome. Nice to have you all here.
Colleagues, as I mentioned before, I would 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 also ask witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing before the end of the week.
I would now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses: as an individual, Dr. Marie Wilson, Former Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and from the Puamun Meshkenu, Chief Executive Officer Jay Launière‑Mathias. Thank you both 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 now invite Dr. Marie Wilson to give her opening remarks.
Marie Wilson, Former Commissioner, Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, as an individual: Good morning, senators and chair, and thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you.
I have spoken to this committee before, and I have spoken to your colleagues in the House of Commons on this issue as well. I feel I’ve been speaking publicly about this and to the media for eight years now. So it’s a very important conversation, and I appreciate that we seem to be getting close to the finish line. I’m very glad to know that.
I don’t know if you’re as aware as I am that this Friday, in fact, will be the eighth anniversary of the report of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and next week will be the fifteenth anniversary of the apology to survivors of residential schools. We are all aware, I hope, that we have lost more than half of the survivors who were alive at that time. All these many years later, we are still not able to answer questions about whether things are getting better or worse. What are the inspirational things we can learn from? What are the discouraging and deteriorating things that we need to put a sharper lens and attention on? So the national council, as we said at the time, was essential. I still believe it is.
Therefore, I want to underscore two broad themes, and I have some specific suggestions. The first is to say that I hope none of what I will say today — or any of the other intervenors, frankly — will cause further extensive delay because we are already so long overdue.
The other thing I want to underscore — and I’m concerned about some of the interventions I’ve heard on this point — is about relationships. We stressed throughout the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, that, first of all, reconciliation was not an Indigenous issue and that reconciliation itself as a core understanding was to establish and maintain respectful relationships between Indigenous peoples and all Canadians.
I really want to speak to a couple of specific things on that. That spirit is captured in the preamble, but in the purpose of the legislation itself, it specifically talks about reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It narrows it. I think that more true to the spirit would be to have wording that suggests respectful relations between Indigenous peoples and all Canadians for the purpose of the legislation.
In terms of the controversial issues around the membership and representation, I think it is important that there be enough of a balance on the committee, that there not be tokenism of anyone. I feel very strongly that there need to be Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples on that national council. I think you’re all aware that I myself am a non-Indigenous person. I was the non-Indigenous commissioner. I think that provided a very helpful perspective among us as a commission team and as we approached our work that was enriching to all of us and certainly instructive to all of us.
I also want to speak about the issue of the annual report. It’s taken almost verbatim from the Call to Action 53, but it specifically leaves out wording in the Call to Action that says that the list is not intended to be exclusive but “would include, but not be limited to, the following.” I’m concerned that the wording right now makes it sound as if that is the complete list. I think about the major things that we’re all aware have evolved in Canada over the past few years, for example, the report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I think that keeping a check on that is something this council would want to report on. I think the issue of finding and identifying the missing children is something this council would want to report and pay attention to. Both of those things are addressed within other Calls to Action within the TRC Calls to Action report, so it would make sense for them to be embedded in there.
I want to just flag my concern that Call to Action 54, which has to do with long-term permanent funding and the establishment of a trust, seems to be absent from this legislation. I’m concerned that without the money and the means, everything can become politicized and fragile when we need this to be permanent and stable.
The final point I would make is that while it’s not for me to decide how the Indigenous people should be represented, I would just offer for consideration that when the apology was made on the floor of the House of Commons — historic as it was — the national Indigenous leaders who were there and who were represented might be the model to follow for those who should be represented on the national council. It just seems to me it’s an issue of continuity, among other things. If the apology was made in the presence of all those national organizations, then surely all those national organizations could also have a place at the table on the national council.
I note that some of the other people who have presented here this morning — the youth council as well as the presentation from the Canadian Roots Exchange — very strongly believe in the importance of a youth voice there.
The last specific thing that I would also suggest is that we have a big, complex country. Often, the North is summarized as being Inuit only. That is an absolute simplification of the complexity of the North. I would suggest adding a paragraph (d) under “Representativeness” that talks about reflection of all regions of the country. That’s not specifically in there right now.
Those are my specific comments. I have many other things I could say, but for time let me just leave it at that. Thank you for this opportunity. Maasi cho.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
I will now invite Jay Launière-Mathias to give his opening remarks.
[Translation]
Jay Launière-Mathias, Chief Executive Officer, Puamun Meshkenu: Good morning. Thank you for being here and for having me today. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to appear before a Senate committee, so this is a pleasure. I’m very honoured to be able to share our views on the bill.
I’d like to tell you a bit about myself. My name is Jay Launière-Mathias, and I am Innu and Anishinaabe. I am the chief executive officer of Puamun Meshkenu, an organization founded in 2016 by Dr. Stanley Volant, the first Indigenous surgeon in Quebec.
Before founding Puamun Meshkenu, Dr. Volant walked nearly 6,000 kilometres, as part of the Innu Meshkenu program, visiting Indigenous communities across Quebec. Under the program, he met not only with people in their communities, but also with non-Indigenous people in the towns and municipalities along the way.
He felt it was important to bring people together through walking and his program. That is central to the program we carry on in everything Puamun Meshkenu undertakes. Our goal is to put bridge-building between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people at the heart of what we do.
Reconciliation is the thread that runs through all of our activities, which is why I’m especially moved to be here today. Reconciliation is deeply important to our organization.
Now I’ll speak to our work on a more concrete level. In conjunction with the Pope’s visit last summer, we organized a 275-kilometre trek from the Innu community of Mashteuiatsh, where I was born, to the Plains of Abraham, where the Pope travelled to in July.
That is nothing to sneeze at. We walked all the way from the community of Mashteuiatsh, the site of the last residential school to close in Quebec, in 1993, to Quebec City. We left on July 21, 2022 and we arrived on July 27, 2022, covering 275 kilometres.
Through the walk, we were able to bring Indigenous people from all generations together, while involving non-Indigenous people and educating them on the realities Indigenous youth face. We worked hard to keep the focus on the core message: residential school survivors must be supported. We felt there was too much focus on the Pope and not enough on the individuals he had come to Canada for. It was critical, in our view, to bring the focus back to survivors and to engage youth.
That’s why I am here speaking to you today. First of all, we feel that reconciliation must take place on multiple levels. Often talked about is reconciliation between Indigenous people and institutions, whether the Canadian government, departments, municipalities or provincial governments. That is a necessary part of reconciliation, and we are on that journey now.
Also necessary is reconciliation between Indigenous people and Canadians. That, too, is ongoing. However, reconciliation between Indigenous people is less visible in the bill. Reconciliation on that level is paramount in my view. As a young Indigenous person, I must come to terms with my history, the wounds of the past and the intergenerational trauma that continues to be passed on, and we must also reconcile amongst ourselves.
The harms done by the assimilation policies of the Canadian government and the church are extensive. Today, it’s also important for us to heal as individuals in order to reconcile amongst ourselves and, more broadly, with the rest of Canadians.
The last issue I want to raise is the role of youth. As a young Indigenous person, I believe it is crucial that young people have a role on the national council. That is why youth representatives should have dedicated spots on the council.
Thank you, [Indigenous language spoken].
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Launière-Mathias. Now we’ll open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses here today. I have two questions, and I think both witnesses can speak to this.
First, Ms. Wilson, thank you for your service to Canada in your role as a commissioner on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Calls to Action are, in fact, what are guiding Bill C-29 and are a catalyst for that. You’ve spoken concisely about some of the issues and some of the recommendations you’d make. I would like you to reflect on whether there is an effective mechanism in this bill to allow the reconciliation council to call for accountability of the federal government.
Second, you were the author of this work. Do you think Bill C-29 properly reflects what you intended?
Third — and I think you’ve actually answered this really — Bill C-29 isn’t perfect, but we need to get moving on this. We can’t wait years. Time is of the essence. The search for the perfect will be the enemy of the good. If there is anything that you would like to add to any of that, I would certainly like to hear that.
To Mr. Launière-Mathias, my question would be: Should we add economic reconciliation to the substance of the mandate of this council?
The Chair: We’ll have Mr. Launière-Mathias go first.
[Translation]
Mr. Launière-Mathias: What do you mean by economic reconciliation?
[English]
Senator Arnot: You’re representing youth. My point is this: One of the fundamental problems that’s driving the need for reconciliation is poverty. Poverty is one of the fundamental factors that’s created this situation. Do you think it would be a good idea to add to the mandate of the national council the concept an economic reconciliation and focus on economics, ensuring that Indigenous people in this country take their rightful place in the Canadian state?
[Translation]
Mr. Launière-Mathias: Yes, I completely agree. You are right that it’s something the bill doesn’t necessarily cover. If the goal is to ensure that Indigenous people have the ability to participate actively in reconciliation, they first need to be able to meet their basic needs.
Economic reconciliation means not only involving Indigenous people in the economy, but also ensuring that they have the ability to pursue development within their own communities. If we want Indigenous people to embark on this journey in a meaningful way, they need to be able to meet their needs in their communities, so they can then assume their role on a broader level.
Also important is the involvement of Indigenous organizations in all aspects of the economy throughout the country. As an Indigenous organization, we work with Indigenous partners and non-Indigenous partners. Through those interactions, both groups have an opportunity to share their realities with one another. All that to say, yes, I think it’s essential to include that aspect.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: Yes, I hope that’s going to work. Yes, we’re fine.
I’m just going back. Your first question was about whether the bill has the teeth it needs to call for accountability from the government. I would just say that’s a very technical question and I’m honestly not sure that I’m the one that’s equipped to answer it. I do know this, that if things are left on the basis of political goodwill, my experience in my long life at this point is that political goodwill can flap in the wind. I think we need to have a permanent institution that actually has enough teeth to be able to call for documents. We had to go back to court, even with the court-imposed obligation for Truth and Reconciliation Commission and obligations within there on the Government of Canada and churches to release documents, we had to go back to court for a reading from the court to make sure that what we thought we were supposed to have come to us would be coming to us. So we have experience of holding back and withholding. I think it is very important that the teeth be there.
I specifically in the early days of this Call to Action said I’m not the one who could serve on the transition committee or the interim board because I do not have the technical skills that I think are essential to know how you go about creating the teeth that are necessary. It’s one of the concerns that I have about the council and all the effort that’s put into the optics of representation. We need to make sure we have solid technical skills as well, that people know what to ask for and how to get it and where to get it. Not just from the government. I want to be very clear about that. In fact, I think there would be room to do a simple amendment that would say not just the government, but also agencies of government. We have Calls to Action in there, for example, related to some Crown corporations. Because they themselves by their nature work independently, I think it would be good to be able to add that kind of wording. There are others who have spoken to this committee who would also be implicated by what the council would be doing; for example, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation is looking into the missing children and keeping track of them. We would need to know how they are doing, whether they have the supports and mechanisms to be able to do that work and whether it is proceeding well. The youth council and the desire to have youth coming together is one of the Calls to Action.
You asked about economic reconciliation. It is its own Call to Action. So if this council is overseeing and paying attention to all those Calls to Action, those various perspectives will have an opportunity to say what’s working for them, what isn’t working for them, what’s getting in the way and what they need. That would become, I hope, part of the annual report.
The Chair: We’re going to have to move on. Our time is up. I remind our witnesses, if you would like to provide further information in writing, please certainly feel free to do so, preferably by the end of this week.
Senator Tannas: Thanks to both witnesses. I want to direct my question primarily to Dr. Wilson because this is a really important moment for us to have one of the authors here so that we can actually spend a little bit of time thinking about what you were thinking about when you developed these Calls to Action. I have a fear that the scope is going to get broadened such that the effectiveness of what you called for, the organization you called for, falls down.
I want to focus on the part that I see in the Call to Action around demanding production of information, key information that becomes the measurements for comparative progress and the specific issues that are so critical that are outlined in the Call to Action. You know, having that vital information is part of the whole truth, part of truth and reconciliation. It will drive better and faster methods of reconciliation if we have got the truth. Data, to me, and information and comparative information is the truth and is required for forward-looking things to occur.
The policy activism side of this organization, I’d like to know what you think are the important elements of the policy activism side. There’s talk of an action plan, some of the presentations that we’ve heard. I mean, this is going to be a big and powerful outfit and has actually started to — I think it’s potentially at the base of why ITK is concerned that the council could start to be an organization that’s cutting other organizations’ grass and getting in the way of substantive things that are happening now that maybe weren’t envisioned when you wrote the report. I am so scared we are going to lose the truth part in what seems to be this fear over who gets to sit on this board.
I wonder if you could help me maybe put that into perspective from your thinking as you were drafting this and as you sit here now, years later.
Ms. Wilson: Well, when we drafted at the level of the commissioners’ table, we did not have substantive conversation about who would be on the council. I don’t want to overstate that. I have not been part of the work that has been done by the interim board and the transition committee, nor was I consulted on it, frankly, except to attend a one-day event early on with the first interim board. I don’t know what all the thinking is there.
My own wish is that we have a representative council, not so the council can function as a policy activist organization, but so we have well-informed perspectives from around the whole country that could say, “We should be taking a look at this. We should be taking a look at that. We should be taking a look at this.” Contrary to any desire or wish to cut anybody else’s grass, to use your good phrase — which doesn’t work in Nunavut, by the way — on the contrary, I hope all levels of government, Indigenous and public governments, would see it as a valuable mirror, an honest mirror for all of us to see what’s working and what isn’t working. If anything, it would be providing additional information for those groups that are needing help. I gave the example a moment ago of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, but another might be the youth groups. They’ve proposed a national youth strategy. I think they’re still waiting to know whether they’re going to get liftoff on that in a meaningful way. The national Indigenous organizations have their own mandates, but they may benefit from and be appreciative of information that can be provided to them. I think Mr. Launière-Mathias said something extremely important as well where he talked about the wounds between and among Indigenous peoples. That, frankly, is part of the challenge of Canada, to unscramble its own omelette. Those subdivisions were created by governments. So now we’re in this tricky space where everybody is scrapping to have their voices heard.
It was never intended to be a policy replacement or advocacy group to replace anybody else, but rather to help the whole country on the assumption that everybody wants us to be the best country we can possibly be, on that starting assumption, and that it’s based on positive and improving relationships. That if we have the data, as you say, and the information to work with, that will help us all. Why would anyone want to be withholding information in that regard?
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome, everybody. Nice to see you all here. I have a question for both witnesses, but the first thing I want to say is that I appreciated Dr. Wilson’s comment on who was present 15 years ago at the time of the apology. I would love to see a list of who that was, so maybe I’ll nod to the clerk and ask if at some point we can receive a list of who was actually there 15 years ago on the floor. I think that was a really interesting comment.
My first question is to Dr. Wilson, but I’m going to ask the chair to watch my time because I would like to get a question to Mr. Launière-Mathias as well.
Again, Dr. Wilson, I share Senator Tannas’s comments. It’s a gift to have you here. As an author, it’s always great to talk to the people who actually wrote the report and had the conversations. You are probably going to get a repetitive question, but I’m hoping it gives you an opportunity to expand further. That being said, the first part of my questions are very much in line with Senator Tannas’s, namely, what was the intent of the TRC, and how does the proposed framework today compare to the TRC’s vision?
I’d like you to elaborate further on the intent. We’ve heard all kinds of things. Was it to be an accountability body? Was it to be a forum for best practices? Is it a place to offer suggestions to remedy chronic economic and social issues for Indigenous people? What do you see the current framework suggesting?
Ms. Wilson: As to the intent, we took advice from many agencies, including international agencies who have done truth commissions in other contexts. The kind of thing that we hear over and again, within Canada as well, is that big reports happen, big reports get released and big reports get forgotten and ignored.
One of the primary things we wanted was a mechanism to ensure that this report doesn’t get dusty, that we keep it alive and that we don’t just say, “We’re sorry. We believe in reconciliation.” We want to constantly breathe new life into it. What does that mean? How will we know that if we don’t have some mechanism that tells us the big picture?
Right now, section 92 of the Constitution subdivides who is responsible for education and who is responsible on reserve, in communities, in provinces and in Indigenous governance. We don’t have a big picture to say how this country is doing. Extraordinary things are happening. I know that. But I also know that I know a few of them. I don’t know all of them. I know that you probably all know a few of them. I know that not a single one of you know all of them. We have no way to know that. It is a huge dream, but it needs to start, and it can evolve. It is really to ask, “Can we look at ourselves honestly, humbly but aspirationally, and see where we need to put our concerted efforts? How do we have to move forward in a different way? How do we keep breathing life into this?”
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. That was very helpful.
As a follow-up to Mr. Launière-Mathias, I am curious, as a young man at this table, and with our wonderful group of youth sitting behind us, what I heard in that response is that the intent is very much around accountability on the TRC Calls to Action and reporting back on successes. Thank you for that because I do think there have been some successes, but also reporting back on our failure is important.
Do you agree that the highest-level intent is accountability over maybe some of the other things that I talked about, which we have heard from other people, such as you have to solve this and this council has to do this? I’ll leave you to answer before we run out of time.
[Translation]
Mr. Launière-Mathias: Yes, I agree with that. The committee needs to have that role, watching, seeing what’s being done, guiding, being somewhat of a government watchdog for reconciliation.
I think local organizations like Puamun Meshkenu have a role to play. They are based in communities, cities and municipalities, so they can implement initiatives that support reconciliation. I don’t think the full weight of reconciliation should sit on the national council’s shoulders. Rather, the national council should ensure progress on the path to reconciliation and support organizations with the contacts and resources to advance reconciliation on the ground. I see that happening on two levels, in a complementary way.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to both of our witnesses here today. I have three questions so I’m going to get them out pretty quickly.
First, for Dr. Wilson, ditto to everything everyone has said. We are thrilled that you are with us, and we thank you for all of your important work. You spoke about how the national council is essential; it is overdue, and we don’t want too long a delay here. We have this big opportunity. You also know, because you have been following our proceedings and the national conversation, that there are some serious concerns. You have raised some points on how to improve the bill that’s in front of us. Might you have any advice on some of those issues that appear to us to be at an impasse — not things that we necessarily as a committee can address but that could be addressed with a process beyond ourselves?
The second thing for you, Dr. Wilson, is Cassidy Caron, President of the Métis National Council, spoke about how so much progress has been made since 2015. You have mentioned as well some of the areas such as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the missing children’s work. Are there other things you think should be brought to bear here that have changed in the eight years that may impact those Calls to Action 53 and 56?
To Mr. Launière-Mathias, thank you very much. I really appreciated you talking about reconciliation amongst ourselves. Could you talk more about what that looks like and whether the accountability mechanisms we are talking about are also accountability mechanisms back into Indigenous organizations and governments? Thank you.
Ms. Wilson: I don’t know what all you are classifying as an impasse at this point. I will be honest. I have monitored some of your hearings — both today and other days — but I have not heard all of them, so I don’t know what you’re zeroed in on as your key areas of impasse. If it is representation, then the one substantive suggestion I have is to go back to the beginning.
The one observation I would make is that there is not a single national Indigenous leader today who was in that position back then, when the fight was fought to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, nor when the apology was issued. That’s always the challenge. One of the reasons the delay frustrates me so much is not just that there is urgency for the need, but there are also dropouts in understanding what we were trying to get at in the first place. That’s why I made that suggestion of a circle back. If that is one of the areas, that is the only specific thing I would dare to offer.
I feel strongly that it is important that there be non-Indigenous members on that council as well. I don’t want that point to be lost. Otherwise, how do you have relationships on the council if there is only one side of the relationship there? That doesn’t work.
You asked about other areas, for example, homelessness, how are we doing on that front? On the issue of foster children and the removal of those — that is actually one of the ones listed — where are we on parenting and parenting workshops? Where are we with the national youth council? That’s one of the Calls to Action. Where are we with senior executives in the corporate world?
One of the big areas of division is in communities. I appreciate what Mr. Launière-Mathias said about that. Many times, it’s the long, spiritual traditions. Where are we with the introduction of interfaith and multi-faith religious studies in schools as opposed to being either one or the other? We could look into a lot of other things. How many professional graduates, how many high school graduates, do we have? Those are the sorts of things that interest me. That’s just off the top of my head.
Senator Audette: [Indigenous language spoken] Marie, thank you so much for your dedication and the journey you took as a portage, dans ton sac de portage. Let’s dream. As a former commissioner, you put that with your colleagues. What would you see in 10 or 20 years for this council in terms of the impact, benefit or vibration that it will create here in Canada?
[Translation]
What is your vision or dream? I have questions for you as well, Mr. Launière-Mathias.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: I will say two things. In terms of the overall Calls to Action of the TRC, we would have a good snapshot. Some of them will never be completed, by the way. They are Calls to Action that intend a continuation. We would have a good snapshot on whether we have actually delivered on those things that political parties said they endorsed 100% — but not just political parties, because many of the Calls to Action are not to government but to other sectors of society. We would have a way of telling ourselves how we’re doing on that front.
The other thing is that we would have, going forward — and I almost hate to think about it because it is such a structured way of thinking — as with any good enterprise, we would have a strategic plan that says for the next five years, here are the things that we will be zeroing in on; here is our priority for next year; this is the one that is screaming for attention. Maybe we would have national reconciliation celebration awards for huge achievements that have been made.
It is a bigger conversation, but it is the sort of thing that I hope a national council would be directing its attention to in order to ask what we want to be able to offer back to the country. You can’t do everything. Nobody is asking a national council to become the Government of Canada. It is a national council that hopefully will be able to hold up real information about the country and about our relationships and that will tell a better story than we are able to tell the world right now and certainly than we have been able to tell the world about our past.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much. Turning to you now, Mr. Launière-Mathias, I’d like to sincerely thank you. I could almost feel the emotion tied to the residential school in Mashteuiatsh and the Pope’s visit. I want to thank you and your team for the work you’re doing.
When you say that it’s also important for us to engage in reconciliation amongst ourselves, can you give us an example of what that would look like? People have a tendency to be for or against the government, but there is another important exercise, and you are one of the only witnesses to talk about it. We have to engage in reconciliation amongst ourselves.
Mr. Launière-Mathias: Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on that aspect. It’s something I have a personal connection to. My kokum is a residential school survivor. I consider myself an intergenerational survivor. Unfortunately, because of the trauma she suffered, she didn’t share her language or culture with my mother or her children. I get emotional talking about it, because of the impact it has on me.
I have a wound when it comes to the connection I have to my culture and my language, one I am trying to heal. It’s a journey I am on, coming to terms with the trauma that didn’t impact me directly but that did impact the generation that came before me. I’m trying to find ways to heal that wound and reclaim that connection. I think it has to start at the individual level.
Then, at the community level — and we see it — there is a lot of racism between Indigenous people themselves, between different nations, between members of the same community, between those who live on reserve and those who live in urban areas. That, too, is a part of reconciliation we have to engage in. That relationship and that wedge that can exist between Indigenous people themselves are often the result of governments’ assimilation policies. We can’t change the past, and neither can the creation of a national council. What we can do, however, is see to it that certain things don’t happen again and understand how we can work together to bring about that reconciliation. By participating in today’s meeting, we are all walking that road, and I hope we get far.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Good morning and welcome to our guests. Thank you, Dr. Wilson and Mr. Launière-Mathias, for all the work you do and continue to do. A special greeting to the students who have joined us. It is great to have you with us. Hiy hiy to you all.
I have two questions. I’ll ask them and both of you can respond. One is very specific and the other is much broader.
I want to go back to the representation. I know we have asked you several times, so please give us your thoughts on this.
As I think about the 94 Calls to Action and the diversity that those Calls to Action cover, and when we are looking for membership on a council and looking for representatives, it is hard to cover all of that ground, if you will. Then we have to take into account both political and technical representation. As you spoke about earlier, Dr. Wilson, we need the people who know how to implement. It is about where the balance is in that marriage. I would appreciate any comments that either one of you might have on that, because many perspectives are coming forward.
My second question is much broader, and I would appreciate any comment you may have. There is a push to passing this bill as is versus waiting for possible amendments that may delay the bill’s implementation. Senator Arnot spoke about that earlier.
Given the political reality we’re in, if there is a change of government, do we think that the new government will focus on reconciliation and the Calls to Action or would they be in jeopardy?
Ms. Wilson: I’m happy to dive in, but I tend to give long answers. Maybe Mr. Launière-Mathias would you like to go first?
[Translation]
Mr. Launière-Mathias: Thank you. I don’t think it will ever be possible to achieve the perfect mix of representation on the council, but that shouldn’t become a barrier to the bill’s passage. I don’t think we should get caught up on whether someone has representation on the council. Everyone is worried about the same thing. We’ve waited long enough for a council like this, and I think we have to just accept that it will never be perfect.
I should take this opportunity to mention that, personally, as far as our organization is concerned, we agree with having non‑Indigenous people on the council. That dialogue is important on the board of directors, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous representatives as well. I forgot your second question.
Senator Audette: I asked about the possible political change on the horizon.
Mr. Launière-Mathias: Oh, yes. To ask the question is basically to answer it. The committee needs to adopt the bill as soon as possible, to ensure that we have every opportunity to advance reconciliation.
[English]
Ms. Wilson: One of the things that I think we did well and right during the commission is that we had to mount seven national events, and because we had never existed before, we were trying to build the bus and drive the bus at the same time. One of the things we built into our approach is that each and every national event — and our means of proceeding was in our concept paper — would build on lessons learned from the previous one, so that each time we were trying to get better.
One of the things that is not there that you might want to consider is that rather than feeling the terror of jumping off the high bar without knowing whether there is water in the pool, you could start and then to have a built-in review mechanism after a certain period of time. You would have to think about who would be engaged in that review. I hope you don’t mind these references but they are the ones that taught me. One of the things we did — and I don’t know whether the council would think to do this or not — was that we formed a table called the all-parties table where we regularly met with all the parties to the settlement agreement. This included the government, the national Indigenous organizations, the survivor representatives and the churches.
It was a two-way exchange. It was partly to tell them what we were doing, give them heads-up, and to let them know where we needed them to show up and be present and so on. However, it was also to tell them if we were running into any snags — and sometimes they were the snag. It was also to check in and make sure that what we were doing, in fact, was in the spirit of what they had intended us to be doing. It was a way of keeping us all on track.
So those two things acted as kind of check-in mechanisms and allowed for review and refinement, including of membership. What I am not comfortable with is the council itself deciding on all the future members after that. I think that is setting it up in a way that doesn’t allow for any course correction or any review of whether it is delivering what it was intended to deliver. That’s just a thought to consider.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Actually, Mr. Launière-Mathias has already answered my question because Senator Audette asked it. I do have another question, if I may, on this issue, Dr. Wilson, of where we are with this legislation and how we can move this forward in a positive way to set this council up for success, the kind of success that we all want and that you have talked about and that certainly was the intention of the Calls to Action that laid out this very important mandate.
Yes, you are right, a lot of the noise that we are hearing is around representation in terms of any resistance or that impasse I guess as I may have described it. That’s only part of it. As Mr. Launière-Mathias said, you are always going to have disagreements on that. So getting that representation correct, including having the technical expertise et cetera is so critical.
The other thing we are hearing, or maybe this is my own interpretation of what I’m hearing, is that some of our national groups, the key national groups, haven’t really been at the table for the development of this legislation and that this is a gap. There is a gap that seems to exist in this case, and it appears to be a significant gap in terms of what we now have before us. We normally expect to have had a fairly significant consultation process with at least those national organizations and others.
That’s really what we are hearing, that what we have today will be hard for those national organizations at this point to get behind. You need them to be able to get behind it. It has to be trusted and set up for success. That’s what I was trying to get at. It is difficult as a Senate committee because we can’t impose further processes. We can just do our job. We can suggest things that could help us move this through. We all want the same thing. We want this thing up and running, but we want it up and running in a way that people will get behind it.
Ms. Wilson: So the question is about the consultation issue. I told you I was very minimally consulted myself. I don’t know what national organizations you are referring to. I know this statement will be controversial, but I feel that the TRC itself was a huge consultation. It was an unprecedented canvas of Indigenous peoples consulting on residential schools, narrowly, but in fact, people spoke to us very widely about multiple sectors of their lives, which is why the Calls to Action are much wider than just setting out what happened in the schools and saying, “Let’s fix the schools.” It goes far beyond that because the impacts go far beyond that.
So that was a huge consultation. One of the things we heard over and over again is, “Don’t let your report gather dust; don’t do all this work and then we never hear about it again.” In fact, many people talked about their reticence even to speak to us because they had no faith that anything would come of any of it. I think if we go back and say, “Well, nobody was consulted,” I think that is, frankly, an unfair representation, because it didn’t start from nowhere. It started from somewhere and the somewhere was a vast field of careful listening and thoughtful thinking about how we make sure that it stays alive and that we continue to breathe life into it, as I said earlier.
You said something earlier about the issue of political representation. I wince at the word “political” because it is a contradiction. It is independent and it is full of political appointments. The spirit of what you are trying to do, the skills to do it and the need to have a representative committee of people from all parts of the country, multiple ages and so on, for me, and knowledge of the subject matter obviously and some technical skills, that’s really the matrix that you are going for. How those people come forward, there are multiple options about that, but that’s what we need to end up with.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Very helpful.
The Chair: We are going to Senator Arnot for the last question. We have about three minutes left.
Senator Arnot: This is just a general question. I really appreciate giving an opportunity to Marie Wilson to say anything else she would like to say, because all the contributions have been concrete, concise and precise. As I go through this, they get really important, and there are many of them. Is there anything you want us to know for sure before you leave today? I know Senator Francis will ask you to put in writing anything you missed. I think this is critical testimony so I want to give the floor to Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Ms. Wilson: I’m going to go back, if I may. You asked me three questions at the beginning. Two of them I didn’t get to answer so I’m going to underscore those because I think they were very important questions. The second had to do what we intended. That’s where I really want to stress what I said about relationships. If it does not allow for relationships in its creation, its makeup and its approach, then that falls short of what we said. We even talk about that in the very wording of Call to Action 53.
The second thing you asked is: If it is not perfect, do we go forward? What I was going to say there is what I did say later, but I would repeat it. For me, there is only one thing that is invisible at this point, and I have no idea how big a deal it would be to add it in.
Yes, it is not perfect. Our TRC wasn’t perfect. The settlement agreement wasn’t perfect. None of our Calls to Action are perfect, but they are a basis to work from and for goodwill and good people to put their best hearts and minds to in order to see how we can make something good come of this.
I would repeat the friendly suggestion that you consider a built-in review mechanism, so if it isn’t doing what everyone wants it to do — starting from the assumption that everyone wants it to do good and important work that will benefit us all — there is an opportunity to say what is working and what isn’t and determine if we can fine-tune that. Is it about membership or about our skills matrix? Is it about the powers and people not actually providing the information that is needed? I would just ask you to think about that possibly.
Also, I want to underscore, Call to Action 54 is silent on where the money is to make this happen. I don’t know why. This cannot be another perceived destitute organization trying to work miracles on a shoestring.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again thank all witnesses for joining us this morning.
Honourable senators, I have one additional other item I would like to share with you before we adjourn very briefly. On behalf of the committee and as agreed upon by steering, I intend to give notice of the motion today in the Senate Chamber to ask for the authorization to deposit our report on the implementation of the Cannabis Act with the Clerk of the Senate so that we may hold a press conference on it on Tuesday, June 13, 2023. Does anyone have questions on that? Thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)