THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 31, 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: I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe 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 Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and the province or territory in which they reside.
Senator Arnot: My name is Senator David Arnot. I’m from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, from Alberta and Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, from New Brunswick, on the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Senator Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good evening, [Innu-Aimun spoken]. I am Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, the best of Treaty 6 territory.
Senator D. Patterson: [Inuktitut spoken]. Dennis Patterson.
The Chair: Thank you. That was nice.
Today we continue the committee’s study on Bill C-29, an Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone to please keep your exchanges 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, and 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. If you do not get an opportunity to fully answer your question before your time is up, feel free to provide written answers before the week’s end. So that everyone keeps on track, at the four-minute mark I will hold this up as a reminder that you have a minute left to complete your answer.
I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, members of the Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation: Mitchell Case, Edith Cloutier, Rosemary Cooper and Michael DeGagné. Thank you for joining us today.
The witnesses will provide opening remarks, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Dr. DeGagné to give opening remarks.
Michael DeGagné, Member, Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation: Thank you for this opportunity at this juncture to say a few words about this particular initiative.
I have a close friend who lives in northwestern Ontario. I visit him probably every other month. He is a survivor of an Indian residential school and a strong proponent of residential schools in that area. We were reflecting, the two of us, on how the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement had progressed. He said, “You know, it is the healing part of what we do that has slowly ground to a halt for many survivors. Many of the survivors in that area missed the opportunity to keep healing going. They are suffering as a result.” I said, “What do you think would have helped?” He said, “You know what would have helped? If we had an organization that continued on, that was a representative of the healing initiative — not a representative of survivors, not a representative of individual organizations, but that spoke to the healing movement.”
This particular initiative speaks to reconciliation. It speaks to a reconciliation movement and wants to keep that going post TRC. This discusses a structure for that organization, and it comes with what it might look like, what generally it would accomplish and what its governance might look like. It is not the definitive work plan or strategic vision for the organization as it moves forward. It is merely a structure. It encourages us to think of something that is a little more permanent and that will encourage Canadians — all Canadians — to think about reconciliation with Indigenous people as we move forward.
I think it was Phil Fontaine, when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, started, who said that this is not an Indigenous commission. This is a Canadian commission about Indigenous people. Reconciliation, and the reconciliation that is espoused by this structure, is exactly that. It is reconciliation for all Canadians. It is reconciliation with Indigenous people. That is why the structure is proposed as having both Indigenous and non-Indigenous members.
There are two particular issues here under which people have raised some issues. One of them is consultation, and the other is about whether there will be an appropriate voice for all Canadians as reflected in this structure.
First, I’ll talk about the voice. We are encouraged as we follow these other witnesses and these deliberations that many people have come forward to say, “I want my voice to be heard through this structure. I want my voice and the voice of the people I represent — the people I speak for, other people like me — to be heard.” It might be youth who want their voice heard or the LGBTQ community or women in particular or maybe even regional representation — the folks from out West want a voice all their own. We’re incredibly encouraged by this because it means that this is not going to be a structure that everyone ignores. It is something that people want to get onside and onboard with, speak to and be involved in.
Of course, there are not enough seats at the board to represent everyone, unless, of course, you want some sort of a general assembly where anyone who represents any different organization, subgroup or region can come together and sit in a great assembly.
What we proposed here is a governance structure that allows people who have been working in the reconciliation field for some time to come forward, assist in the governance and make sure that this organization accomplishes its main goal, which is to reach out to all Canadians in dialogue so that every voice can be heard. We do not believe that you need to be represented on the board to have your voice heard.
Secondly, the consultation part is going to be critical. We see the organization as it moves forward being engaged principally in consultation and building on all the consultation that has occurred to this point, whether it is from as far back as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP, to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation for over 15 years, to most recently the TRC.
I’m looking forward to the discussion and to questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. DeGagné, and I understand that Edith Cloutier would like to say a few words.
[Translation]
Edith Cloutier, Member, Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation: Good evening. I’d like to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you from the unceded traditional territory of my people, the Anishinaabe. Thank you — meegwetch — for inviting me. It’s a privilege to be here alongside my fellow members of the Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation. Our committee was established on December 16, 2021, by the Minister of Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Marc Miller.
We would also like to highlight the contribution of Chief Wilton Littlechild, former commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. At the outset of our committee’s work, he underscored the urgent need to move forward with the creation of the National Council for Reconciliation, which hinges on the passage of this important legislation. Our committee’s work was guided by that ambitious, albeit realistic, objective.
Today marks a milestone, after two years of the committee’s work and almost eight years to the day since the release of the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is a pivotal moment in a lg journey that we hope will culminate in the bill’s passage. I want to reiterate the recommendation of former commissioner Dr. Marie Wilson, who appeared before the committee and called for the bill to be passed without delay.
Throughout the process to develop a legal framework for the creation of a national council, we prided ourselves on keeping at the forefront of our work those who don’t necessarily have a seat at the important tables where reconciliation is being discussed.
In my day-to-day role at the Val-d’Or Native Friendship Centre, I work alongside those for whom reconciliation must mean something. Working so closely with my brothers and sisters day in and day out, I have learned to share their stories, the stories of their families, the stories of their children and the stories of their grandchildren, and to better understand their experience, their struggles, their failures and their successes.
The National Council for Reconciliation must represent those realities. It must stay connected to that which gives reconciliation meaning to each and every person. Meegwetch. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cloutier. Mr. Case, I understand that you have a few words to say?
Mitchell Case, Member, Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation: Thank you, chair and senators, for inviting us this evening. I thank my colleagues for the work that has gone into getting to this point today with the report that we submitted several months ago and the legislation that was tabled.
I am not going to say too much because we want to leave a lot of time for questions, but I will say that there will always be another reason to delay. There will always be another reason to let perfect be the enemy of good. There will always be another way we could improve things. But, as was said already, it has been eight years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission tabled their report. There are a lot more reasons, in my mind, to get on with this work — to have this body out there doing this work.
The TRC report will do some of the work for reconciliation in this country. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls will do some of the work. Self‑government agreements and all those other things that are ongoing will do some of the work. There is no body, entity or agreement that will do everything to fix the complicated history we have in this country, but every little piece of it can work to build something better.
Do I think what we’ve tabled is perfect? Absolutely not. I’m a pretty good bead worker. Do I think this vest is perfect? Absolutely not. To you, sure, but I can see that there are still things that I would change about it. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not a beautiful vest and that it should not go out into the world and do some nice work. That is where I think we’re at with this work and why I was quite honoured and happy to put my signature to it when we submitted our report several months ago. My grasp of time is not the greatest, and so I don’t know when it was that we submitted the report, but it is before you.
I will leave it there, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Case. Ms. Cooper, I understand that you would like to say a few words as well.
Rosemary Cooper, Member, Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation: [Indigenous language spoken] I’m Rosemary Cooper. Along with Senator Dennis Patterson, I’m from Iqaluit, Nunavut.
[Indigenous language spoken]
I would like to recognize Senator Patterson and his question around [Technical difficulties] representation that he had raised just recently. We know that representation for the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, is on the table. We as a transitional committee have talked about that as well. We also recognize [Indigenous language spoken] and the Women’s Council of the Assembly of First Nations. We’ve talked about how NWAC integrates those voices for representation. We’re hoping to see some of that representation that is holistic in nature for Indigenous women in Canada. When you think of our population base for Inuit women, it is half for Canada’s gender sector for Inuit women and men and one third of Indigenous women in Canada. We still have to ensure that that voice is there through this transitional committee and the representation. I wanted to raise that additional point.
Again, as Mike DeGagné mentioned, this is reconciliation for all of Canada. That means Canadians and the effects of our history. It is crucial that everyone who has been designated to be on this board is representative of that. We have had a thorough discussion around representation. As Mike said, we cannot have everyone under the sun on this board. We have done a pretty good job in the representation side that is within the legislation and the discussions we have had internally.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cooper.
The floor is now open for senators to ask questions.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for coming here today. This is a very important panel. You had quite a hand in framing this. I have a general question and then three separate questions. I do not expect you to answer them all tonight because of the tight time frame.
My general question is really this: Is Bill C-29 what you intended? Does it reflect what your intention was?
We have heard, as you know, from Dr. Wilson, who has spoken about an appropriately funded agency. What are your comments about sustainable funding, especially with the endowment of $125 million? Will that actually generate enough money to operate the commission the way that you see it should operate? If it’s just on interest, that does not really amount to a lot of money on a yearly basis.
We have heard from a number of witnesses who have said, “Look, Bill C-29 is not perfect, but we can’t wait. We need to move forward. The quest for perfection should not impede what is good.” Are there any critical amendments that you think would need to occur to ensure that your vision is reflected in this bill?
Dr. Wilson spoke about this, but is there enough flexibility to revisit and adjust the mandate and make course corrections as this national council moves forward?
I will now make a general observation. We heard from Dr. DeGagné that, in a sense, what you are saying is that the council members will shape this. They will have an opportunity to interpret this mandate and take this council in a direction that they think is appropriate. If that is the case, can you amplify that? I really would appreciate any comments that you have. I realize with the time limit that you may not be able to answer all of that, but I really believe that you are going to help us understand what we should do in our work.
Mr. DeGagné: First, is this exactly what we had envisioned? It is a series of compromises, but what is important here is that, in terms of the discussion of a structure, a vessel or a vehicle to move us forward, this is good. This will get us there. The answer to the first question is yes.
Is this appropriately funded? It depends on what the board wants to do. If it wants to become a funding agency for funding reconciliation programs across Canada, probably not, but in terms of operating, to get things off the ground and to do all of that initial consultation and dialogue, absolutely. I think what has been proposed here is sufficient.
Concerning the third question in terms of amendments, I would throw up a lot of caution about introducing this group or that group as if to say the only way to have a voice in this structure is not through the dialogue but you have to sit at the table, at the board. As an initial board, we are going to carefully find people who have had experience in doing reconciliation in Canada already. We are looking for technicians. We are not looking for another political organization that will get between the people and government. That is not what we’re interested in.
As far as amendments, I would be concerned about the introduction, for example, of the very important voice of Native Women’s Association of Canada, NWAC. That is critical, but at the end of the day, it also means that we do not want to leave out Inuit women, Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak and the AFN Women’s Council. By introducing one, you perhaps introduce four, and then introducing another one, and before you know it you have the United Nations. That is not where this is going.
The last thing is that there are plenty of opportunities here for the right board in a governance role to sit and strategize what it wants to do in the near and further term, so all kinds of course corrections are possible.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I remind witnesses that if you would like to provide further testimony in writing, feel free to do so. Unfortunately, we are on a tight time line this evening.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you to the panel for your presentations today.
Mr. DeGagné, it’s nice to see you again. I was struck by the story that you shared about healing. You were on the frontlines of that healing movement at the very beginning when a lot was happening in our community. There wasn’t a lot of evidence; the AFN produced as you went. What lessons were learned from the Aboriginal Healing Foundation that you hope we really understand for this council? What are you hoping that this council achieves? When the rubber hits the road, what do you hope to see happen?
Mr. DeGagné: Yes, I did have experience with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the AHF. I think many positive things came out of that. One of the most critical things is that if you put the right group of people together, they will find a way not only to get their own needs met but also to ensure that the needs of everyone else at the table are met. For 17 years as Executive Director of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, principally concerned with the healing movement, that board made 1,500 critical funding decisions that changed the lives of residential school survivors. At the end of the day, First Nations, Métis and Inuit sat together, worked together and made the right decisions.
That is not just lightning striking. This is entirely possible. I have seen it work. I have seen that if you get the right technical minds around the table, great things can happen. I would expect something very similar to happen along the lines of the reconciliation movement. I think that if you get the right groups together, take the show on the road and listen to Canadians and to Indigenous people, you will come up with a plan that will serve Canadians well in the future.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: We have heard a lot about representation of Indigenous people, which is critical. How do you see non-Indigenous people fitting on this council? That could be for anybody.
[Translation]
Ms. Cloutier: When we look all over the country, we see that efforts toward reconciliation are under way throughout Canadian society, in public institutions, in parts of the business world, in universities and in the knowledge-based community. There isn’t enough focus on what’s already being done, efforts that have been undertaken on this important and long journey toward reconciliation.
I think the work of an organization established specifically to help measure progress towards reconciliation will provide an opportunity to pay attention to what all of those organizations and people are doing to advance reconciliation, to talk to them, and to document and validate their efforts.
It is not only time, but also necessary — urgent even — to shine the spotlight on efforts being made across the country, throughout Canadian society, within institutions and at every level of the country. It’s time to move forward and to highlight all of that work.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Thank you all for being here.
When we got into the subject of national organizations and what was intended in the Calls to Action around having national organizations be part of the board-making process, Dr. Wilson dropped a bread crumb and said to look at who was at the apology 15 years ago, and that should tell us who, in terms of national organizations, we might turn to or who should actually be there. I confess that I don’t know if our crack team of Library of Parliament researchers have found that out, but we probably should. We got it? I missed it. Sorry. If somebody could hand it to me, that would be great. Maybe we could share this. Is that something that resonates with you as a way forward? That’s number one.
When I look at the Calls to Action, I can see that there could be — especially when we see the competition to get on this board — a real leaning one way or the other towards an activist‑driven agenda kind of activity for this organization, whereas when I read it, three out of the four functions that are in the Calls to Action are more around trying to provide education and measure progress — to make deep measurements of progress, not just superficial measurements — and make sure those are reported on through that accountability. Do you have any fears, going back to the membership issue, that if we don’t get it right, we will miss one or the other of those two functions? For me, I think that we’ve got lots of activist organizations and we’ve got rights holder organizations and we’ve got government advocacy organizations, but we don’t have an organization that is out there measuring, evaluating, analyzing and promoting that as how we actually move forward rather than just talking a lot. Could anybody talk about this? I’m worried about it. I’m worried that we’re going to make a mistake by either rushing or providing the wrong answers to what seems to me to be a particularly difficult moment in the birthing of this organization.
Mr. Case: I’ll take a quick stab at it, senator.
I think you’re right. There are a lot of organizations and entities and governments out there. I’m certainly not interested in another organization out there advocating for me as an Indigenous person. I have one of those, and it does a really good job. This organization, this entity, should be out there doing the measuring and tracking work, being able to see where we’re making progress and where we’re falling behind, and to be out there listening in some sense. What reconciliation means in Sault Ste. Marie, where I’m from, is different in northern British Columbia or anywhere else. There’s no cookie-cutter or one‑size-fits-all answer to that. For the 9 or 11 board members, whatever the number ends up being, having reconciliation in Canada fall on the shoulders of 9 to 11 people, if that’s what we think we’re doing, let’s stop now. Between my community and Canada, reconciliation is being driven by our leadership and whoever else, but in other communities, maybe there’s someone who needs to be heard or listened to or whatever else.
Just to close, I was doing the math in my head, and I think this is the seventh time I’ve appeared before this committee in the 10 years I have been doing this job or another version of it. I never thought I needed to be a senator to be heard here. I can come here and give you my thoughts and know that it’s been heard. That’s a way to think about the way that the board will be set up.
Mr. DeGagné: I was there at the apology, and it was those people in Parliament, sitting there above, and then there were a couple hundred of us sitting in chairs through the open doors, watching. I would expect that every one of those people are still working to advance these important issues, and they should all be consulted and spoken to in that incredibly strong network, which is still very solid. I know 10 of you sitting here in this room. It’s still solid, and we should all be consulting each other. They don’t all need to sit on the board, but they certainly all need to be consulted, and that dialogue has to continue. Yes, I think that list is a good place to start.
As far as activism is concerned, 95% of the organizations in the Indigenous world are political and activist. We have no desire to ignore the very real need to build up civil society for Indigenous people and stay away from what is too often just only politics.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome to all of our witnesses.
First of all, I want to say I think I heard quite clearly — and I appreciate the clarity on the idea — that we need to move this forward. We’ve heard different opinions on that, so it’s good to get clarity from this group.
I also want to say I appreciate the higher-level comments being made today. You’re not in the weeds as much as some of our witnesses have been. A couple things I heard that I really appreciate are that you don’t need to be on the board to be heard, and looking for technicians in reconciliation really resonated with me.
My question is two parts. I’m going to start with Ms. Cooper because we haven’t heard too much from her. I’m repeating a question that Senator LaBoucane-Benson asked about the role of non-Indigenous people on the council and if there is a role for non-Indigenous people on the council in the name of reconciliation.
On the purpose of the council, I think it was Senator Tannas who kind of went down this road. I really liked your comment that the council will shape the purpose. That makes sense to me. That being said, we’ve heard lots about this council has to hold the government accountable for the Calls to Action and either the lack of action or, in some cases, some successes, that it should be a solution-driven organization for the many injustices that Indigenous people still suffer with, and then the concept here this morning that this is really going to be a listening council that continues the road of healing. I would like just some comments from as many of you we can fit in on what you think the role would be. I’ll start with Ms. Cooper, and then we’ll see where we go with time.
Ms. Cooper: Thank you, Senator Sorensen.
For a Canadian representative on the council, it’s so critical. We need that person that’s a champion and that’s visible on reconciliation, a role model who we can say has worked towards reconciliation with the Indigenous people of Canada. That’s the type of model or representative that we want to see.
Then the shaping is so critical. As we form the council, the bylaws and all the instruments that are required, the composition, that is a lot of the work that we’ve been looking at, and the consultation that we’ll tailor once the council is in place. We haven’t dabbled a whole lot on the consultation front. However, as Mary Wilson has said, it’s been eight years. Many consultations through the TRC have happened. As the Transitional Committee, we are shaping the board that is incoming, and we’re very eager to see that flourish. We want a timely way to see this legislation in place.
I’d like to add a point here. As Indigenous people of Canada, historically, when you look at statistics and the data around Indigenous people, it’s been around how I grew up understanding that I’m the best at the worst. Everything was telling me I don’t need to work to succeed because statistics, the whole environment, was teaching me that I don’t have to do a whole lot to prove myself in society. This reconciliation effort is really about uplifting ourselves as Canadians, to see ourselves as one and to look at reconciliation measures. We’ve passed the apology now. I was also at the apology and saw at the time Mary Simon who was the President of ITK and Peter Ittinuar. These are the people working who are champions on reconciliation, and they will continue on. Thank you.
Mr. Case: I have two thoughts.
In terms of the council holding government accountable, I would as strongly as possible caution against that. Canadians need to hold the government accountable. The council can give reports on which Canadians could demand to know, election after election, why nothing has changed. I don’t think delegating to the council is good.
I mentioned earlier that I’m a bead worker, and I notice patterns. I notice in watching both your committee and the House committee previously that there seemed to be a pattern emerging that if I get a seat on this board, then this board is great, and if I don’t, then this is bad, this is no good and we can’t go forward. I say that with all due respect to everyone involved. I haven’t actually seen any real proposals as to what it should look like if it’s not what we proposed.
When there’s a long list of people both here and at the House committee saying, “I should have a seat on that board,” I think the board and the structure itself make sense. As Michael said in the opening comment, people want to be here, so I think that sort of answers itself.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Honestly, thank each of you for your inputs tonight, your wisdom and what you’ve brought to the process even before you’ve come to us.
You know we’re struggling. You’ve watched what’s been happening here. Some of what I’m struggling with is not what you said, Mr. Case, in terms of whether it should be this one or that one. No, because that’s understandable. What’s difficult, I think for me, anyway, is that the organizations that have been identified to populate one of those seats, the original three in particular, aren’t happy with it. So for me, it’s not the ones who want to be on it; it’s the ones who were already identified as central to populating this council. I’m not meaning they have to be political people or representatives, but they have to put the right people there. They’ve told us they are not happy. I described it as a bit of an impasse yesterday. Maybe that was the wrong terminology, but buy-in and trust are really important so that this council gets off the ground, yes, urgently. Yes, it’s been a long time. Yes, so much work has gone on here and there’s so much to be done, and the longer we don’t get going, we’re missing getting going on the important work. How do we address those concerns that we’re hearing so that we do set this up for that success that is dependent on the trust of all Canadians and all Indigenous people across Canada, but also the representatives of those rights-holding organizations? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
[Translation]
Ms. Cloutier: Thank you for that crucial question. We talked about that when we were examining the council’s makeup and organization. We wanted to make sure it was as agile as possible and, above all, that its composition reflected the many voices of the fine people who make up the incredible Indigenous community. The organization has to be independent as well as non-political. As you can understand, that was our premise for shaping the type of organization we wanted to create.
Obviously, the organization also has to be led by and for Indigenous people, while including non-Indigenous people. It’s important that the organization have the backing and support of the political class, and that government be able to contribute to the organization through the appointment of representatives. That said, reconciliation is a very uncomfortable space. It is uncomfortable because there has to be give-and-take on all sides in order to advance reconciliation together.
Today, I think we have an opportunity to mark a new milestone and especially to take concrete action. By we, I mean all those who are contributing to this thought process and helping to advance reconciliation. The time for thinking, theory and ideas is over. The time for action is now. With the creation of the National Council for Reconciliation, we will be able to get on with it.
[English]
Mr. DeGagné: We introduced these three nominators, representing First Nations, Métis and Inuit, to make sure that no one would be left out and so that each one of these organizations would carefully consider a nominee and they would come onto the board. It was in the interest of being fair to all three groups in the same way.
When we’re asking a political body if they would like to create a body that is not under the control of chiefs or Inuit or Métis, senators or whoever it is, it wouldn’t be unusual for them to say, “No, we prefer this to be somehow under our control.” That’s the nature of those organizations. But I don’t think it’s quite as simple as that. At the end of the day, political organizations are worried that this will become a political body that will supplant their current direct connections to government. All we can do is say this is not what that is. This will not become what that is.
I worked with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation for 17 years, and we were never political. It’s not impossible. In fact, it was expected, and the board was very careful about it. So is it possible? Absolutely. That’s what kind of an organization this is. I don’t blame those organizations for being worried about this somehow disconnecting them from government, but I can only give them every assurance that’s not how this is set up.
Senator Audette: I remember the healing foundation. Yesterday we had an amazing witness, a young man. I put names on the list, but I don’t know their position on Bill C-29. It was a beautiful surprise to hear him talk about reconciliation among us as well and how important it is as Indigenous people. I saw the impact in my own family, in the community, with Quebec Native Women, the friendship centre, with this program and this foundation.
I’m a strong believer that we’re at a stage today in 2023 where people should trust us. They should trust that because of our lived experiences or the PhD of life, we know what’s good for us. Do you agree with me? We were so kind to welcome people, and we want to continue to welcome people and to change history. How can we bring together people in my new Shaputuan, my new life at the Senate — it’s not only Indigenous people but they’re amazing people — so that they will be comfortable when they hear the president of an organization say, “No,” or a grand chief say, “No”? Today, it is them, but in 10, 20 or 30 years, it will be another face, another spirit. We have to think of the next seven generations. How do we say to my colleagues, “Trust us”?
Mr. DeGagné: It’s a challenge. That is the problem with having only political organizations up to now. We do not have many civil society organizations that we can point to and say, “You see this group? That was a group of Indigenous citizens who got together. They had an expertise in a particular area. They worked together, and they produced a positive outcome that was fair to everyone.” If only we had hundreds of those organizations to point to. But we don’t. That’s the problem in our community. Everything is political.
Places like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the National Aboriginal Health Organization were shut down by political bodies. What we’re trying to do here is to rejuvenate that and to show that you can trust Indigenous citizens and, in this case, non-Indigenous people who are also supportive of our cause to work together to develop an outcome that is fair to everyone.
Senator Audette: Would you be comfortable if we put an amendment in Bill C-29 so that it is black and white that it will not shadow political relationships that those organizations have with the government, because that is not clear?
Mr. DeGagné: Well, Mike DeGagné would say yes. I cannot speak for the committee, but absolutely.
Mr. Case: Quickly, senator, Senator Arnot asked earlier about amendments that we would make and conversations that we have already had about eventual bylaws, assuming that this goes through. We have been deep in conversation around language around a non-consultative relationship with government. If the federal government thinks that it might hear something it doesn’t like from AFN, ITK or MNC, it cannot come to this group and ask, “What do you think?” Right? I would go back about 18 months ago — that is, if I had my time machine — and we would put that in. Yes, that would make sense to me.
Ms. Cooper: Having been around politics for most of my life, there is always a change in government and a change in commitments. Just be mindful that commitments are made, and then everything is gone the next day. This reconciliation effort and the piece of legislation lives on. It is not political. It is about a movement in Canada. I will leave it there. Politicians have their space and commitments, but this is about reconciliation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you for coming here, and thank you for your presentations and your wise words.
I want to share something and then I would like your reaction to it. Before I came to the Senate, I was the academic lead for the National Collaborating Centre for Indigenous Health, almost 20 years ago. We faced many of the challenges that you have identified this evening. We were apolitical, yet we had technical representation from AFN, ITK and MNC. We had really strong technicians from a variety of sectors and spheres. I understand what you are up against. We have heard from political organizations about their need to be represented there. It heartened me when I heard Mike say that this was leaning more towards a technical committee. It is really challenging to have politicians and technicians together. Politicians will trump you every time, and you cannot do anything — at least, that has been my experience.
As I listened to you speak this evening, some things came out very strongly that I have heard in other testimony. Sometimes the purpose is already there. The purpose is that we are lifting up the survivors and the gift that they gave us with their stories. It came out in the commission’s report. This is one of the calls based on that. There is a contradiction of colonial experiences that are continuing even today. There is a role for that. With reconciliation, we are not in this by ourselves. We are partners and people. There are a lot of us in this boat, if you will.
There is also a focus on education and healing. Really, that’s what we’re about. We’re about healing a relationship that is long, old and extraordinarily complex. If our purpose is to heal that relationship and if we focus on those things, it takes it away from the political. The political absolutely have a role to play, but perhaps not here. Their role will come later as you are moving things along and as the council moves things along, having heard from the people what that should be in detail. I think you have the big pieces. The detail will come in the council. I wondered about that and about what your thoughts would be on it. Maybe that is just offering up what I have heard as a focus.
The point was made about aligning political folks and their hesitancy, if you will. How do we assure them? This amendment is a really strong way to do that, namely, to ensure that this council will never overshadow their bilateral or their relationships with government. That is critical. This is about heart. This is about people. This is about healing. It is about all of us — not just Indigenous people but everybody.
I would be happy to hear your reactions. Sorry. That was very long.
Mr. DeGagné: You are quite right. At the end of the day, this is all about healing. That is what reconciliation is. Without our partners — that is, if we just have Indigenous people there — it is like one hand clapping, right? We need all who are going to be involved together.
A lot of reconciliation is happening right now. This council is not going to manufacture reconciliation or own it. All we’re going to be doing is catching people doing things right and showing other Canadians what is possible. At the same time, we’ll show where the gaps are and where institutions, governments and individuals can do more. All of that is part of the healing. Integral to that is the relationships that we have and the dialogue that we create through this council.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Greenwood. Sorry to keep moving on, but still there is quite a list here.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Dr. DeGagné, and others, but to you in particular, what you said about getting away from being political and being a political organization struck me. You talked about healing, as did Senator Greenwood. That really got my attention.
Looking at your report, it called on the council, the commission, to oversee government programs, policies and laws relating to Aboriginal peoples and to report to Parliament. That seems to me to be very political. In the bill before us, we have the same kind of thing, namely, monitoring policies and programs of the Government of Canada which, again, would seem to be an interface with political bodies. Should that stuff be stripped out so that we can focus on what you said are the priorities of ordinary people?
Of course, we also have political organizations nominating and getting the right to nominate directors as well. I am just wondering and trying to think about the implications of what you said. I think you said that if you could go back 18 months, you would maybe reconsider how it looked. Is there a way of streamlining this to move in the direction that you have recommended and take out some of that stuff? President Obed has clearly said, “This is our turf on the Inuit-Crown Partnership table. We’re feeling threatened by the bill.” Should we strip some of that stuff out and focus on the important things that everyone has been talking about around this table? I am just thinking out loud here. How do we act on what you have just said?
Mr. DeGagné: Mitch said it well. This is not a regulatory body. There are no powers here to enforce or force the government to do something that we believe is in the best interests of reconciliation. We can only shine a light on it.
This mirrors the sentiment and some of the language that came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I think it was envisioned originally that this was just going to be a big stick and that the whole purpose of this body was to oversee what the government was doing and to wag a finger or make sure they did things better, but over the course of the last six years that we have been working on this in one form or another, that is not where this has emerged. What has emerged is to say that we shine a light on what governments — plural — are doing and leave it to Canadians to hold people to account or to applaud people where appropriate for their actions on reconciliation. It is not regulatory.
Let’s assume we could go back and strip this out and say that we won’t take a hard look at what the government is doing. That might be seen as contrary to the spirit of the TRC’s recommendation. It might also be seen by others as letting a lot of government work off the hook. So I think we want it to be clear — based on the amendment that Senator Audette was alluding to — and perhaps we can make it clearer that our job here is to shine a light on everyone and what they are doing. That said, this is not an organization that wants to insert itself between rights holders and government. There is no intention of that, nor is there any capacity to do that. That is not what this core group will do. I think maybe that is the way to get at it.
Senator D. Patterson: What you are saying might be spelled out in the bill — it may be in the preamble — to clarify, if clarification is needed.
Mr. DeGagné: Yes.
Senator D. Patterson: It seems to me that is what might be behind the concerns of President Obed, whom I pay attention to, considering the region I represent. No doubt, as we get closer to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, might even have amendments, as they often do. But it seems to me that what you have just said needs to be spelled out somewhere, somehow. I am just thinking out loud here right now. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeGagné: A comment in the preamble sounds like a good idea.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of this panel, which is complete. I thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
As I mentioned before, I ask everyone to please keep the microphones away from your face, and 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 goes to committee members and then other colleagues. I 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: from the First Nations Tax Commission, Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner, and from the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, Dawn Madahbee Leach, Chairperson. Thank you both for joining us today.
Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, to be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. To help keep us on time and ensure equity for all, when we reach the four-minute mark in your time, I will hold up this sign to let you know that there is a minute left so that I do not have to cut anyone off.
I now invite Chief Commissioner Jules to give his opening remarks.
Manny Jules, Chief Commissioner, First Nations Tax Commission: Honourable senators, good evening. My name is Manny Jules, and I am the Chief Commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission, one of the three institutions created by the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, better known as the FMA. I was also chief of the Kamloops Indian Band from 1984 to 2000. Thank you for this opportunity to appear as a witness before this committee as part of your examination of Bill C-29, the National Council for Reconciliation Act.
As one of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, I am pleased to see the government’s decision to enact legislation to make the creation of the national council a reality. The establishment of a permanent, adequately funded, non‑political, Indigenous-led organization to advance reconciliation is something all Canadians can and should support. I think we all agree that given Canada’s history of colonization, there is much that needs reconciling. However, I’m going to limit my comments to the economic component of reconciliation because I think it provides an important message about how to bring about reconciliation in all dimensions.
Let me say that economic reconciliation is more than just writing a cheque. It must ultimately restore to First Nations the tools and decision-making powers they need to attract investment and participate fully in Canada’s economy. Many First Nations are poor today because, in the past, other people thought they could make decisions on our behalf, better than we could for ourselves. Many people thought we could not be trusted to go into business or take out a mortgage. As a result, they felt they had to protect us by making it impossible for us to do that. This is the kind of thinking that led to decades of underinvestment in First Nations lands, and the underinvestment has meant poverty, homelessness and hopelessness for many of us. That is the kind of thinking that has left us powerless in our own lands. We had people second-guessing us every step of the way. This was the opposite of self-determination.
For true reconciliation, we need to restore not just the land but the powers and authorities necessary to make that land productive. That’s what I call economic reconciliation, and economic reconciliation is a necessary condition for self‑determination. Economic reconciliation means providing First Nations with our own revenue-raising powers under conditions where we can exercise them freely.
If we are going to measure our progress towards reconciliation, we need to consider the following: First is the availability and growth potential of First Nation own-source revenues. Second is the extent to which those revenues are not encumbered or potentially encumbered by other government agencies. Third should be our ability to apply those revenues according to our own priorities and in our own way. In short, does our revenue authority line up with our responsibilities and jurisdictions? For example, can we use these revenues to improve our ability to respond to economic opportunities? It will allow us to respond, as my father used to say, at the speed of business. Can we apply these revenues to protecting our land base and supporting our ability to ensure our children are educated in our culture?
These questions are why I have advocated so strongly to establish the FMA. I knew it would provide revenues that could not easily be clawed back. I knew it would allow us to apply these revenues to our priorities without anyone else’s oversight. I also knew that was the key to economic reconciliation, self‑determination and prosperity.
To conclude, I strongly believe that reconciliation must include economic reconciliation. We cannot achieve full recognition of reconciliation without removing the legacy of colonialism that has left us unable to participate fully in the economy. The First Nations Fiscal Management Act institutions have been doing this successfully for almost 20 years, and there is much more to do. For this reason, the first board of directors must ensure that the national council monitors our progress and advocates for measures that advance and improve economic reconciliation.
As my ancestors wrote to Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier in 1910, by working together, we can make one another great and good.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Commissioner Jules. I will now invite Ms. Madahbee Leach to give her opening remarks.
Dawn Madahbee Leach, Chairperson, National Indigenous Economic Development Board: [Indigenous language spoken]
Meegwetch and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about Bill C-29 regarding the National Council for Reconciliation Act.
I’m speaking today as chair of the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, a ministerial-appointed, non-political organization mandated to provide advice and guidance to the federal government on all aspects of Indigenous economic development.
Reconciliation will not be complete until economic reconciliation is achieved and Indigenous peoples in Canada achieve socioeconomic parity.
The effects of colonialism have been devastating to the social and physical health of our communities. One of its most nefarious objectives was the deliberate exclusion of Indigenous peoples from sharing in the wealth of this country.
A year ago, the National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada was released. This document is the result of a historic collaboration amongst more than 25 national Indigenous economic organizations. The strategy provides government, corporate Canada and all institutions and all people in this country with a coherent vision to guide Indigenous economic inclusion from coast to coast to coast.
The creation of a national council for reconciliation is a great first step in holding Canada accountable for progress on reconciliation. The very essence of reconciliation must inspire Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples to transform Canadian society so that future generations can live and thrive together. To better embrace economic reconciliation, our board recommends that representation from the national Indigenous economic organizations be included. The voices of survivors, women, youth and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community must also be included in a meaningful way to help inform Indigenous and Western approaches to reconciliation efforts.
The responsibility of the national council for reconciliation should extend beyond monitoring and reporting on the progress made on measurable outcomes, including in relation to TRC Call to Action Number 55. It must also include monitoring and reporting on the full implementation of the UN Declaration Act. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and provides an effective framework for industry and business to establish respectful relationships and work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples. Most importantly, corporations and governments must respect the right of free, prior and informed consent.
Finally, I draw your attention to the leadership role that the First Nations University of Canada is taking to monitor the implementation of the 107 Calls to Economic Prosperity found within the National Indigenous Economic Strategy. Companies and organizations are already beginning to share their reconciliation work with the university. Call to Economic Prosperity 79 in the strategy specifically says:
Establish and empower an Indigenous Institute to collect and govern Indigenous data about population, businesses, lands, and resources. This Institute will monitor and measure implementation of these Calls to Economic Prosperity.
The responsibilities of the national council for reconciliation and of the First Nations University should be seen as complementary. The two institutions should bring forward a mutual work plan specific to monitoring research, policies and progress associated with implementing the TRC Calls to Action, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Calls to Economic Prosperity contained within the National Indigenous Economic Strategy.
The TRC was clear that establishing constructive, mutually beneficial relationships and partnerships with Indigenous communities will contribute to community economic growth, improve community health and well-being and ensure sustainability, all of which will ultimately benefit Indigenous peoples and all Canadians.
Many thanks for the opportunity to speak with you today on this important topic. I look forward to any questions you may have. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Madahbee Leach. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.
While both witnesses have been very clear and concise about what they want — there’s not a lot of ambiguity there — one of the things I’m hearing is that you would like to see economic reconciliation placed in the mandate of this council so that it can be measured. If it isn’t in the mandate, it won’t get measured. If it doesn’t get measured, it won’t get done. That’s basically what I’m hearing. You need that lens because poverty, or lack of prosperity, is really at the heart of what’s gone wrong in the relationship between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people in Canada. I don’t really have a question, so I’ll just say that I think I’ve heard what you’ve said. If you want to amplify and make it clearer to me, please do so.
Ms. Leach: If I may, I wish to re-emphasize the importance of the economic lens, because I and many others I work with are strong believers that when you address the economic issues, that helps you address the social and cultural issues that our people face today. Of course, that can help support the healing that I heard the first panel talk about today. I really feel that that economic lens is really critical to this work.
Mr. Jules: In 1927, when Mackenzie King was the Prime Minister of this country, a piece of legislation known as Bill C-56 was introduced to take away our fiscal powers. That piece of legislation made us forever dependent on the federal government to build anything in our community — whether it be infrastructure or homes — and look after our own families and children and send our own children to school. If we’re going to have an independent body dealing with reconciliation, if it doesn’t deal in some way with and measure economic outcomes, it would do a disservice to all Indigenous people. I’m a survivor of the Kamloops Indian residential school. That institution was also put in place to take away our language, history and culture. When we look at reconciliation, we cannot look at these issues in isolation from one another. It cannot be just the social policy approach to dealing with all of these very important issues. As a matter of fact, the more First Nations get involved with the economy, the more we can begin to look after ourselves and the more we can make greater contributions to the federation as a whole.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much, Mr. Jules, and thank you to Ms. Madahbee Leach. Both of you are really bright lights in Canada. The work that you’ve both been doing and your leadership in economic development is just exemplary. It’s good to have you here.
I really appreciate you reminding us. As Senator Arnot said, I think we hear you. Clearly, we need to be not just measuring poverty. We want to be measuring people moving out of poverty, and one of the best ways to move out of poverty is to be economically active, as you have pointed out.
The other aspect of what this council is meant to do is shine a light on those bright spots across our country. Who’s connected to those bright spots? You are. Many of them, you’ve helped foster. Why would we not create some language in this bill — not to hold it up — that acknowledges the importance of that?
Mr. Jules and Ms. Madahbee Leach, both of you could maybe answer this question. We hear that the voices of people working in economic development are important along with the other voices that you have mentioned. You’re actually good examples of organizations that are non-political. That’s what this council wants to be. There are probably some things we can learn from you. You’ve also talked about relationships with other organizations such as universities — the First Nations University — and the role they could play. Is there anything else you want to mention to us today about other regional- or national-level Indigenous organizations that you think will be critical for this council to have relationships with?
Ms. Leach: I just wanted to add that in the National Indigenous Economic Strategy, we really emphasize the need for our own institutions in different areas. We really feel that more progress is made when we have our own Indigenous-led institutions. I really wish we could say that you need to include our national institution on Indigenous education. I really wish we could say that you could include our national institution on supporting family and childcare. I wish we could say we have a national institution on Indigenous health services. These are some of the things that are stated in our strategy that we need, and those are the types of institutions that would be appropriate to bring forward to bring those kinds of lenses and that expertise. What I find is that when we have such institutions, we’re able to — I heard the earlier discussion — bring on the technical people to make some things happen in these various sectors. Fortunately for us, we do have a group of national Indigenous organizations in various economic sectors, so that’s what has helped lead economic development in Canada. There’s still a lot more work to do, but for sure, developing our own institutions is a real need right now because we know we could do the job better than any other organization or institute when they’re Indigenous-led. They really do make a difference.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Mr. Jules: Indigenous-led doesn’t mean exclusively Indigenous. On my commission, we have three non-Native representatives, and they fully function as part of the commission. As a matter of fact, their voices are critical in bringing legitimacy to the issues that we’re facing. Their support is incredibly important because we have to reach out and work with many non-Native groups, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and others across the country. They’re our bridge to dealing with those issues. I fully support non-Native representation on the commission. I think it’s absolutely important. This country is made up of many people, and we have to be able to build those bridges.
One of the other aspects that I find very important is the educational component. We have to be able to influence, right from kindergarten through university, a new understanding of thinking Indigenous and bringing Indigenous thought to all of the educational institutions. That can only be led by Indigenous folk.
One of the other aspects that I think is critically important for the commission to look at is international aspects. I work with the Maori in the South Island of New Zealand. When you look at international issues and how they’re dealing with reconciliation, I think that’s an important component of the work that has to happen in the future. It isn’t just about New Zealand. It’s about Australia and about looking at the experiences in the United States and throughout the Americas.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jules.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: When I look at the Calls to Action and the work of the TRC, the economic development reconciliation wasn’t really a part of the work that they did — not that they didn’t think it was important, but they were really grounding it in the testimony of the survivors, particularly around residential schools and what the intergenerational effects were. I’m thrilled to hear that there are calls to economic prosperity and that there’s a report. I was just looking at it on my phone and thinking, “I have to read this.”
What I’m really curious about, though, is where the data for this measurement would come. I wonder if we would have to build structures or projects around collecting this data. First, Mr. Jules — it’s nice to see you again, by the way — how do you envision that data collection happening so that we truly understand what is going on around resource revenues, economic development and innovation in Canada with First Nation, Métis and Inuit people?
Mr. Jules: Well, we did have a statistical institution that, unfortunately, didn’t function and was taken away. I think that has to be looked at. Maybe the Senate could look at that whole issue of having an Indigenous-led statistical institute. One of the things that we had to work around because that institution is no longer part of the FMA is to create that capacity within the fiscal institutions themselves, and that’s under Bill C-45.
It’s critically important to have measurements that we can look at not only in terms of measuring poverty but also in terms of measuring economic development and growth. The only way you can do that is by having the institutions that can stand up to the federal and provincial institutions that are in place now.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That’s awesome.
Ms. Leach: If I may add, I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the National Indigenous Economic Development Board produces a national Indigenous Economic Progress Report. We have issued three reports. They’re located on our website. It’s sort of like an Indigenous state of the nation report. We are coming out with our fourth report later this year. It measures the income, education and employment levels of Indigenous people, as well as well-being and economic well‑being. We look at all of these kinds of measures. We’ve been producing this report since 2012, so we’d like to draw your attention to it. In there, we compare our stats to Canadian education stats, income and employment levels. We also have distinctions-based data included in that report as well. I just wanted to bring your attention to that.
I also wanted to mention the OECD report on linking Indigenous people to regional economies. There’s a good wealth of information in that report, and it’s filled with recommendations for the Canadian government on supporting Indigenous engagement in regional economies. You can find both of those reports on our website.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Before I was at the Senate, I advised on a project by the Auditor General of Alberta who was looking into the economic participation and contribution of Indigenous people in Alberta. It was found to be in the billions per year. Is any other province or territory doing that? Is that rolled up in your work as well, Ms. Leach?
Ms. Leach: Yes. Atlantic Canada has produced a similar report, as has Manitoba, so we have three provincial reports. I know that others are looking at developing similar reports that show the actual Indigenous expenditures in those provinces and the contributions that are made. Oftentimes, people don’t realize that when Indigenous economies and communities progress, so do the regions around them. I think that’s an important point to make.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you to the witnesses for being with us tonight. Your wisdom is really important, especially around economic reconciliation. Certainly, it would be empowering and absolutely needs to be included.
You started to talk a bit, Mr. Jules, about other countries and some of the examples that maybe we could learn from. Maybe both of you can speak about that. You started to speak about New Zealand. Are there some examples that could fit into this national council for reconciliation that we might think about or learn about?
Mr. Jules: Absolutely. This is part of answering one of the other senator’s queries about the work that we’re also doing, and that’s reaching out and working with the Bank of Canada, the Bank of New Zealand, the National Australia Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis-St. Paul and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. We’ve convinced all of those banking institutions to begin taking Indigenous economic issues to heart and as part of their statistical base. I think that’s critically important because right now we’re not even part of the measurement of our economic potential.
We learned early through COVID that when the federal government was rolling out many programs that there weren’t any for Indigenous people, so we undertook that analysis. We found out that our corporations within the communities that we work generate some $17 billion on an annual basis. The land assessments that we work with are now in the range of $15 billion. The amount of economic clout that First Nations have is substantial, and that’s only going to grow. You have to be able to measure that.
When you look at international issues, one of the things that we’re doing is partnering with Thompson Rivers University and the University of Canterbury. That will be formalized in July. We’re also reaching out and working with a number of partners in both Australia and the United States. When we do meet, we look not only at the economic potential that we have but also at breaking down trade barriers and telling stories about one another and what we’ve had to overcome. That could be easily translated to part of the mandate of the reconciliation commission because, in order to solve the issues, we have to be able to look at not only ourselves but also our other relatives that have been colonized in much the same way.
Senator Hartling: Do you have anything to add, Ms. Leach?
Ms. Leach: Yes. For years, I’ve been watching the progress of reconciliation in Australia, the work that they’ve done and the fact that they host on their website reconciliation action plans of the various companies and institutions in that country. I’ve always felt that it’s really a great exercise to have that, where you publish publicly the reconciliation action plans.
I know they were struggling with measuring the progress and verifying the progress made, but they’ve been starting to do that kind of work there. I think it’s so important, because one of the things they said was that there was a bit of a competition starting to happen. A company wanted to do a better reconciliation action plan than others, and it has really changed a good part of the landscape there when there’s a concerted effort and you have a national organization there that is responsible for measuring that progress.
I’m really looking forward to what we can have with this organization moving forward. I think it can only benefit all of Canada.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
The Chair: I should remind our witnesses as well that if you don’t get a chance to complete an answer this evening, as we’re on a bit of a tight time limit here, certainly feel free to provide any additional information in writing.
Senator D. Patterson: I’m just delighted to see this panel tonight. Senator Coyle said it well about the leadership you both have shown, and this same committee is soon going to be helping you make a giant leap forward when we consider Bill C-45, I believe.
I want to ask you about a direction we got from the interim directors of the council, who basically told us tonight that they believe that there is a very strong need to continue progress in healing and to build up the survivors. I think Ms. Madahbee Leach answered this, but I wonder if I could ask Mr. Jules briefly. What is the link between healing and the need for restoring power and authority to make land profitable and move people out of poverty? What’s the link between those economic development efforts and healing your people?
Mr. Jules: You only need to look at my community in Kamloops where the 215 were found a couple of years ago this month. One of the commitments of the federal government was to provide funding for a healing lodge in my community. Well, the federal government and the provincial governments, for every dollar that we collect in tax revenue, they collect seven, and we’re going to be committed to building a healing centre based on a program from the federal government. In the long term, we would be able to manage that ourselves if we had the jurisdiction that the federal and provincial governments have right now. So there’s a direct link in my community, and you can find it over and over again right across this country. If we have the jurisdiction, if our jurisdiction is restored, we are going to be able to look after ourselves, and healing is a very important component of that. If you don’t have a good, sound mind, you’re not going to be able to deal with the multitude of issues that we’re going to be facing in the future.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Now, this is to both of you. I look in the bill, and I don’t see anything about what you’ve been calling “economic reconciliation.” There is a reporting requirement on the minister to make an annual report comparing educational and income attainments of Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons, but most of the goals of the council are related to reconciliation and social indicators. Here’s my question: Should we not try to find a place in this bill to recognize and spell out the critical importance of economic reconciliation? I know there was a proposed amendment in the other place, as we call it, and one MP said that they didn’t understand what “economic reconciliation” meant, and it was defeated. Should there not be a place in this important new law for the goal of economic reconciliation? What would your advice be?
Ms. Leach: Of course, as you can see by the comments that I provided, I think economic reconciliation is critical to helping with our healing process going forward, because I think it’s only our people who can really make a difference in the healing. Sometimes the best way is to help people regain their sense of who they are and be proud of their community. When we see the communities that are progressing economically, we see, clearly, that they’re able to invest in their own people and they’re able to build the cultural programming that we don’t get funding for. They’re able to help with the supports that especially the survivors of residential schools don’t normally receive. They are able to invest in these kinds of supports if they’re generating revenues that can help them address a lot of the economic shortfalls and also support better education. We don’t have enough funds in place to help all of our youth go to post-secondary institutions, but economic development can help address a lot of those economic shortfalls.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
The Chair: Very quickly, Mr. Jules?
Mr. Jules: Obviously, the reason I’m here is to advocate that the legislation encompass economic reconciliation.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Audette: To the witness, Manny Jules, we don’t age. It was many, many moons ago. It’s good to hear the two witnesses. For me, it’s wisdom and knowledge, the brother and sister.
At the same time, it’s good that we have this discussion because it’s how we want to read and understand and interpret it in French or English. It says that it’s supposed to monitor all sectors of Canadian society and all governments in Canada. If it’s not clear enough that it’s including economic reconciliation, let’s put it in there. I don’t know because this is my first experience, but Mr. Jules, you were there when this commission was debated as a bill many moons ago. I’m sure we were not comfortable with it, but today we call you and we welcome you as an expert.
Where I want to go is that we want to create something. We’re not sure, but you can help us. You went through that, and today you’re helping us to make better decisions through your knowledge or what you have in your mandate. What about a memorandum of understanding, an MOU? Your organization is created by a federal act. Why don’t we create an official link between this council and your commission to make sure that there is a dialogue and data exchange and so on?
I don’t see you.
Mr. Jules: I’m here, Michèle. It’s good to see you, though.
One of the things I want to make sure of is that I’m clear on the support for the establishment of the commission. I think it’s absolutely critical for the future of this country and the well‑being of this country, both in its soul and — as Ethel Blondin said many years ago, we have to be able to look in the mirror of this country and see ourselves, and this is going to help achieve that. I’m not opposed to MOUs at all.
Senator Audette: Or something else if you want it.
Mr. Jules: That’s right. Having an explicit statement about economic reconciliation makes sure that it’s front and centre. In my view, you can’t get to dealing with all of the myriad of social policy issues without having economic reconciliation, and that’s why Dawn and I are here to reinforce that message. We’re not asking for seats on the commission. We’re advocating that it be part of its mandate.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Leach, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Leach: I want to thank you, senator, for your very kind comments. I fully support what — I still call him Chief Manny Jules — has stated and reiterated here.
We know that, again, economic reconciliation is huge and can really make a difference. We’re seeing it in action, but it needs to be better supported going forward. We know that there needs to be that link, as I mentioned in my comments, with the National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada and the 107 Calls to Economic Prosperity. There is also the road map that the First Nations Financial Management Board developed, which is also very strong. It has a coherent vision that people can really follow here, and it would be important for that to be linked directly to this council as well so that it is a major part of it. What caused our poverty and caused the pain was taking away our economic power. We need to bring that back. It needs to be a part of it, because that is what we had and we still have. I think we’re starting to exercise that now. But it is very, very difficult if we do not have a plan. I am really glad that this is something that all Canadians can get behind.
Senator Arnot: I want to have these two witnesses comment on economic reconciliation in this context: Within the last 60 days or so, at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, we heard chiefs and First Nations entrepreneurs talk about the need for the federal government to guarantee loans so that those kinds of individuals, corporations or communities can invest in resource extraction, mining, oil, gas, et cetera. That idea has been around for some 20 years, but it has never gotten any traction here, and there is a lot of frustration. When you talk about economic reconciliation, there is something that the federal government could do perhaps in that vein, as I said. Some of the senators here on this committee heard the same evidence that I did. It seems to me that that is something. You cannot make a profit unless you can make an investment, a cash investment, to be part of a corporation or to own the corporation or be on the board of directors. I see a linkage between what you are saying today and what I heard at the Energy Committee, and I wonder if you could comment on that.
Ms. Leach: Sure. One of the things that has been a part of the legacy of colonialism was the fact that there’s resource development taking place all around us, but our communities still are living in poverty.
Senator Arnot: Right.
Ms. Leach: Now we are seeing ways to become more involved in the economic development or that regional development that is taking place by becoming equity partners and owners and becoming members of the board of directors of some of these companies doing the work in our traditional territories. I really believe that there is a strong link there and that we have started to build good capacity to become involved in major players.
I really don’t think that Canada, with its critical minerals plan, can move forward without the involvement of Indigenous people. In order to be able to provide the critical minerals that the world needs, Canada needs to be the first one to include and involve Indigenous people in this work in a more meaningful way, not just peripherally where we get some trinkets and beads — and that is jobs. Usually there are job objectives that are never met in a lot of these agreements. Equity ownership and the supports to become equity owners would be huge. But it will be important to be able to leverage capital at a reasonable cost as well, in order to make these. Having the supports and the advice behind our communities so that they are making informed decisions on these investments — so they are getting the best advice — is going to be really critical as well.
Mr. Jules: It is clear, because of the conflict in Russia and Ukraine, that Canada needs to look at its security, not only in terms of food security but energy security and working with the other, as they call it, the Five Eyes. It is critically important that First Nations be involved in resource development of any type. As a matter of fact, there won’t be any resource development without First Nations’ involvement.
To echo what Dawn was saying, and building on it, one of the things that I have been advocating provincially and federally is for a First Nations resource charge so that we would be able to benefit directly as governments, taking a share of what the federal and provincial governments would collect in terms of its own corporate tax approach. I look at taxation as a fundamental governmental power. That would put First Nations in place to be able to leverage those governmental powers to access long-term loans and to participate in a greater fashion.
When you look at reconciliation, I believe Canada is founded on what I call an extractive economy, and by that I mean that the federal and provincial governments could not extract the resources that it claims today without putting First Nations on reserve lands and without dealing with the Inuit and the Métis in the same way.
Senator Arnot: Thanks very much.
The Chair: I do not have any other names on my list. Does anyone else wish to ask a question, or are we good? We are good. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. We appreciate your testimony. This meeting is now adjourned. Oh, Mr. Jules, yes?
Mr. Jules: I want to tell a little story. As I mentioned, I went to the Kamloops Indian Residential School, and one of my good friends wrote a poem, and it is called Monster, which is about the former residential school. In the poem, he talks about seeing the residential school, and ultimately he forgave the building for all of the harm that it caused him. He recognized that it was just a building, but it was the individuals who caused him harm.
This is something that is aspirational for all of us:
I was looking at a tall building with four stories
stories of hope
stories of dreams
stories of renewal
and stories of tomorrow
The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Jules. I met him last September on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Amazing man. Thank you for that.
This meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)