THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 14, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from British Columbia, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Martin: Good evening. Yonah Martin from British Columbia. Hello.
Senator Coyle: Good evening and welcome. Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good evening. Patti LaBoucane-Benson from Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken] Michèle Audette from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we will continue the committee’s study on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone to please keep your exchanges 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 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada, we have with us Katherine Strongwind, Director. From the Native Women’s Association of Canada, we have Carol McBride, President; and Lisa J. Smith, Interim Adviser to the President. And we have, as an individual, David MacDonald, Professor of Political Science at the University of Guelph.
Thank you all for joining us today. The witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
To help keep us on time and to ensure equity for all, once you have reached the four-minute mark in your time, I will hold up this sign to let you know that you have one minute left. Please be mindful so that I do not have to cut you off because that’s the worst part of my job.
I will now invite Katherine Strongwind to deliver her opening remarks.
Katherine Strongwind, Director, 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada: Boozhoo and good evening. My name is Katherine Strongwind. I am an Indigenous adoptee from Winnipeg, Manitoba. I was adopted as a newborn into a non-Indigenous family who I no longer speak to.
Both of my biological parents died before I was 12 years old, and I have four siblings, three of whom I have never met. The brother I did meet in 2019 died of an overdose in June 2020. It was over a month before I learned of his death.
I share this with you to highlight that Sixties Scoop survivors and our families continue to deal with the effects related to our forced removal and adoption, as well as the intergenerational trauma of Indian residential schools and Indian day schools.
Today, I come to you from the unceded territory of the T’Sou‑ke Nation, as the volunteer director of the 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada and the adviser to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation for the Province of British Columbia.
I’d like to thank Senator Mary Jane McCallum for putting my name forward to speak to you today on Bill C-29.
The 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada is a national, peer support, non-profit organization formed in 2017. We work to advocate for Sixties Scoop survivors, to create awareness and education on the Sixties Scoop and to promote healing and wellness for survivors and our families. Our board is inclusive of First Nations, non-status, Métis and Inuit survivors. We have never received any government operations funding since our inception.
Our board of 13 survivors, in principle, supports Bill C-29, with three amendments to the proposed legislation. First and foremost, there must be at least one grassroots Sixties Scoop survivor on the council.
As direct survivors of the government’s assimilationist policies and legislation — that had long-lasting effects that we continue to suffer from — we must have a seat at the table where decisions about our healing are being made.
Our removal did not just affect us. It deeply wounded our parents, siblings, grandparents, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, elders and communities.
In 2021, alongside former senator Murray Sinclair, we called on the federal government to commission a national inquiry into the Sixties Scoop. This is an important step toward truth and healing for many survivors, yet the ministers have not responded to our calls.
To date, Sixties Scoop survivors and our parents, as well as those who died in care or at the hands of their custodians, have not truly been recognized by the federal government with an inquiry, apology or healing support.
This is part of the work that we do at the 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada: We raise awareness of the unique experiences of Sixties Scoop survivors, and the need for healing support for us and our families. It is only fitting, then, that we nominate a member of our board to the national council for reconciliation in order to continue the work that we do on behalf of Indigenous survivors of child welfare and forced adoption.
Second, the national council for reconciliation must have a non-status representative. Many non-status peoples have been dispossessed of their treaty and status rights in order to strip Indians and half-breeds of their rights to land by the federal government.
On my father’s side, my great-grandmother was opted out of treaty status at three years old by her father in the promise of Métis Scrip by the government — which, as we all know, rarely happened. We also know now that this was a ruse to allow non‑Indigenous settlers to purchase homesteads and property on stolen Indian land.
Non-status peoples continue to be under-represented in discussions about reconciliation. Therefore, there must be a representative of non-status Indians on the council as a person with lived experience — and not as an office-holder.
Lastly, the national council for reconciliation must have a mechanism for preventing Indigenous identity fraud or “pretendians.” Self-identification is no longer an acceptable means of proof of Indigeneity. Not only is it morally and ethically wrong to falsely claim to be Indigenous, it is an insult to those of us who were taken from our families, and who have worked hard to re-establish our connections to our culture and community. There should be no occasion where a non‑Indigenous person sits on the council, in our view.
In closing, the 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada is in support of Bill C-29 to create the national council for reconciliation with those three amendments.
We thank all of the legislators for their work on this important step toward fulfilling the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 53 to 56, and we echo the calls for the government to provide adequate funding for the national council to be successful.
Meegwetch. Thank you. I appreciate the time today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Strongwind. I will now invite President McBride to deliver her opening remarks.
Carol McBride, President, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Good evening. It’s with great pleasure to be here today on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation — my homeland.
I want to thank the honourable committee members for your good work.
Bill C-29 is an important piece for truth and reconciliation — perhaps it’s the most important piece because it is about implementation. It is about ensuring that the 94 Calls to Action are implemented.
The Honourable Murray Sinclair, the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, has said, “Education got us into this mess and education will get us out of it.”
The following are things that we know. We know that Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
We know that colonial processes often perpetuate harms to the people I represent: the grassroots women, girls, transgender and gender-diverse peoples from coast to coast to coast.
We know that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Action 53 states:
We call upon the Parliament of Canada, in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal Peoples, to enact legislation to establish a National Council for Reconciliation.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, was not consulted. If we were, we would have been included in the original text of the bill. However, I am happy that the bill was amended at the committee stage in the House of Commons. I am glad that the House of Commons recognizes how NWAC will help the council achieve its mandate.
We also know that the purpose of the council is to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and, pursuant to clause 7(d) of the bill, in carrying out its purpose, the council is to monitor policies and programs of the Government of Canada, and federal laws, that affect Indigenous peoples.
NWAC is an established leader in this regard. NWAC offers a distinct voice in advocating for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
It’s important to keep in mind that NWAC is an inclusive voice. Our membership is inclusive of First Nations on-reserve and off-reserve, status and non-status, Métis and Inuit.
We know that colonial harms are perpetuated under the Indian Act. Indigenous women and their descendants — those who, in the mind of the government, do not hold rights — continue to be disenfranchised. NWAC ensures their rights are upheld, and that they are represented at tables. We also represent urban Indigenous peoples.
We are a voice for those who are no longer with us — those whose rights have been trampled. There is a genocide in this country.
We know that one of the federal pathways of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is “ignoring the agency and expertise of Indigenous women, girls . . . .” I commend the parliamentary process for ensuring that our women’s agencies and expertise will be included.
Finally, we know that section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights which are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
I live by the Seven Grandfather Teachings — one of which is truth. I hope that we can all work together to live our truth and to implement the 94 Calls to Action.
Again, to reiterate the belief of the Honourable Murray Sinclair, when we know better, we do better.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, President McBride. I will now invite Dr. David MacDonald to deliver his opening remarks.
David MacDonald, Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph, as an individual: Meegwetch. Thank you for inviting me to appear today. I am an Indo-Trinidadian-Scottish settler originally from Treaty 4 territory, but I’m speaking from Tāmaki Makaurau, or Auckland, which is the ancestral home of nine Māori iwi who are mana whenua and have kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, over this land. It is also my fiftieth birthday this morning.
Thank you to Senator McCallum and her staff for their support as I prepared for this meeting. I have eight recommendations. Since some call for amendments to Bill C-29, I will provide precise wording during the question-and-answer session.
The wording is in my brief, which the clerk has, so the committee members may consider it as part of my testimony. I have a longer 4,500-word brief with more detail if the committee members would like to see this, too.
First, I recommend increasing the federal funding to, at least, $450 million — $600 to $800 million would be better — for the council so that it can be independent and generate its own revenue. This is in line with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation model, which became self-sustaining from a total investment of $515 million. The council will need money to collect data, bring in witnesses and maintain a staff of researchers and community‑engaged scholars. The council can also fund projects at the community level to promote reconciliation. Funds could also be put into monitoring mechanisms and legal experts if the government and institutions choose to withhold information.
Second, the council must have judicial powers comparable to that of a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, including the ability to subpoena witnesses and call for documents and other pertinent information to be provided. Unlike temporary inquiries, the council must have permanent status as a tribunal.
Third, the purview of the council must include all orders of government in Canada. Since the federal government is but one embodiment of the Crown government, copies of the annual report should be presented to provincial governments, territorial governments, municipal governments and official representatives of the Crown. Reports should also be tailored when there are specific thematic concerns within the jurisdiction of subnational orders of government. I have specific recommended wording for changes to the following in the bill: the preamble and clause 17 regarding the report of council, tabling in Parliament and government response.
Fourth, there must be an evolving understanding of reconciliation beyond the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC. I have suggested additions under clause 7 of the bill regarding the functions of the council. The 94 Calls to Action should be a benchmark, but not an unchanging standard. After all, the TRC was a post-judicial entity that had constraints under its mandate, and its recommendations may be a decade old when the council begins operations. There must be mechanisms for new calls as they arise, including the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls; recommendations by the Office of the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools; and any violations of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights on Indigenous Peoples.
Fifth, the council’s scope must be expanded to include the Christian churches and other supposedly charitable institutions involved in the Indian residential school system and ongoing settler colonialism. The council should clearly identify mechanisms by which they can recommend that the Canada Revenue Agency suspend charitable status for institutions that abuse their status by withholding information about past or present crimes for which they may be responsible. This should be a last resort, but an option on the table nonetheless.
Sixth, the council must be genocide-aware and trauma-informed, and there must never be an assumption that orders of government are politically neutral or necessarily favour Indigenous rights. The preamble must be amended to include genocide recognition, moving beyond the soft language of assimilation — again, I can provide precise wording. There may be a need to adopt a more adversarial position in the council when cooperation is not forthcoming from orders of government or other institutions.
Seventh, the council should also submit their reports to the United Nations. The Canadian Crown and associated orders of government must be held accountable internationally. The council should file its annual report with the UN special rapporteur, with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues — all in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Eighth, the council should develop protocols for the use of artificial intelligence, or AI. The council must take a strong stand against the use of AI surveillance, and protect Indigenous privacy and data sovereignty. The council should identify ways that AI can be used for positive goals, such as monitoring government policies at all levels and tracking the responsiveness of institutions, including the RCMP and the Canadian churches, to suggested changes by the council, as well as conducting media analysis, aggregate polling and other types of information gathering and analysis. The council should set aside funds to generate expertise and capacity to ensure that AI is no longer harmful to Indigenous peoples, and ensure that it can be of benefit in terms of data aggregation and collection.
Meegwetch. Thank you for your invitation to participate, and I look forward to any questions that may arise during the session.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. MacDonald. I wish to mention to our committee members that the brief that Dr. MacDonald mentioned was shared with you last Friday via email, and it is available online. I will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all of the witnesses who are here tonight for your presentations.
I have a question for each one of you. It’s a question that I’ve asked a few times. This bill isn’t perfect. There is a lot of concern about some aspects of the bill, and each of the witnesses here has identified some shortcomings, on one hand. On the other hand, is it in the best interests of Canadians — and the work of the national council for reconciliation — to get started as soon as possible, notwithstanding the recommendations that you have made for some amendments? That’s my question for each witness.
Ms. McBride: I believe that we have lost a lot of time so far, and I think it is urgent that we get started. I’m hoping that we can hit the ground running in these matters. As you can see, there have been many complaints about the government acting too slowly in regard to the implementation. I would definitely want to see this acted upon immediately, or as soon as possible. Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald: I am fully in favour of this proceeding as quickly as possible. I have recommended wording, so I suppose my recommendations could be slotted in — if people agree, then that’s great; if not, then there may be some things that need to be done in the future. I do believe it’s important.
The funding issue is a big one; I think it’s going to be seriously problematic. During one of the earlier sessions with my colleague Ian Mosby, I think Senator Arnot worked out that it was $2.6 million per year on the funds of the government. I don’t want this to be based, for example, at the University of Manitoba where various governments can choose to cut university funding. That imperils the work of the council. I wouldn’t want them to be beholden to the churches. Look at the Catholic Church, which said they would come up with $30 million, and now they have $10.3 million, or something like that. If there is a change of government provincially or federally, we can’t necessarily count on funding that way. I strongly favour the Aboriginal Healing Foundation model. The interim council has suggested $1 billion — that was from the Indigenous Watchdog website; I’m not sure if that is accurate, but I think it is.
If you want to proceed as is, I guess that’s okay. I think that Ms. Strongwind had some important points about representation that are crucial to be looked at. I do not think the council can be viable unless it has more money, or else it will be a creature of the government, corporate interests, the churches or universities, which means it’s a creature of the provincial government where it resides. Its independence and ability to manœuvre would be circumscribed. That would be my view on that.
The Chair: Ms. Strongwind, do you have anything that you would like to add?
Ms. Strongwind: I agree with both of the witnesses that time is of the essence. We are losing survivors quickly. Many are aging and unwell, and it has been eight years since the TRC inquiry wrapped up. I think that now is the time to really move this forward. I agree with the funding concern. I’m willing to start tomorrow — just kidding, but not kidding.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Martin: Thank you to all of the witnesses.
Dr. MacDonald, your list of eight recommendations caught my attention, especially the last item, so I might ask you a question about that.
But first, if I may speak to President McBride, in my second‑reading speech, I referenced the fact that it took the efforts of my Conservative colleagues at committee to ensure that the council’s board of directors has a seat reserved for your organization. You mentioned that you had not been consulted. That’s concerning because you are a major organization. I wonder if you could talk about what happened, or the lack of consultation with your organization. Also, what do you think of the composition of the council’s board of directors? Should it be equal parts men and women? What are your thoughts on the composition of the remaining seats on the board?
Ms. McBride: First of all, I became the president of NWAC last July, so I will answer what I know.
To my knowledge, we haven’t been involved in any kind of consultation. The only time that I did anything relevant to this was my presentation to the House of Commons.
I also have Ms. Smith with me. She has been a lawyer with NWAC for a while, so she may have other information on the consultation part with NWAC, but I believe there hasn’t been any.
In regard to your other question on how the council should be made up, there should be equal representation of women and men. I represent women and families, so we must put more women on there because we are definitely the heart of our nations. That’s the way I feel. I also believe this group should be a reflection of what we have in Canada.
Lisa J. Smith, Interim Adviser to the President, Native Women’s Association of Canada: I will say that NWAC wasn’t consulted, and that was reflected in the original text of the bill. Of course, we were excluded. If there were consultations throughout the country, we would have been in the original text.
I will point to clause 12(2) of the bill. It talks about gender diversity, and that’s a key component here. I want to note that we would also like to see transgender and gender-diverse people be a part of this as well.
Senator Martin: The sponsor of the bill in the House said:
. . . we used a collaborative approach to develop Bill C-29. Engagement with indigenous leaders and communities was integral to the process every step along the way.
So it’s surprising that you were not part of that process, being such an important organization.
Going back to Dr. MacDonald, you had very strong recommendations. The last recommendation caught my attention. AI is sort of the topic of the day. It made me wonder what you meant by developing protocols. Do you have examples of effective uses of AI for organizations or councils such as this? Can you expand a bit more on that final point?
Mr. MacDonald: Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Martin. There is an Indigenous AI working group which has produced a number of reports, partly through Concordia University. There’s a Canadian dimension to that. They’ve established a series of protocols and ideas for how AI can be used.
In part, it’s about respecting Indigenous status sovereignty, and, in part, it’s about not using AI to surveil and monitor, or try to predict, the behaviour of Indigenous peoples, especially with different forms of surveillance.
There is also tremendous potential. You could look at polling data and other things. AI does give the opportunity, in some ways, to look at what all orders of government are doing. I don’t have any specific protocols as such. It’s not my area of expertise, but it is, as you said, an area of growth.
If the council doesn’t have protocols, and a position on the use of AI by governments against Indigenous peoples, then there is a risk of continued harm. There is harm occurring at the moment. I also stress its potential in terms of the modern mechanism. I have a post-doctoral student, who’s a Métis scholar, at my university with whom I am working, and we’re looking at some of the issues. He is very much the expert, not me. I hope that answered the question.
The Chair: Yes. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I have a little question for each of you.
President McBride, I’ll start with you. You mentioned that NWAC represents Indigenous women. Can you tell us how it represents — and how it would represent — Inuit women and Métis women in particular? We know those communities of Indigenous peoples have their own representative organizations. How would you relate to those organizations if NWAC were represented — and I’m happy that it looks like NWAC will be represented — on this council?
Ms. McBride: Thank you for the questions. With our organization, whether it’s for Métis, status or whomever, we have one main goal: advocacy. We have one main goal in terms of any needs that our families are experiencing across the country. We are trying to develop tools that will help them be safer. We’re working with the problem areas, like housing, health and many different areas; there are so many areas to name.
In all of these areas, we have the information and the data that’s needed to be a full participant at this table.
Senator Coyle: For the Inuit women and Métis women of the country, how would you specifically relate to those communities of women?
Ms. McBride: On our board, we have PTMAs, or provincial and territorial member associations, for each province and territory. They represent the women of their province or territory, whether they are Métis or whomever. It’s the province or territory that will draw in — I don’t want to say it’s “different types” of women — the Métis, the status or the transgender people. Each PTMA is responsible for listening, helping and trying to be there for the needs of our women. They will play a major part in bringing to light their needs and their experiences. There are different experiences all across the country. They’ll bring that as well, and we have that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
I’ll now proceed quickly to Mr. MacDonald. I understand that you’ve done extensive research comparing New Zealand’s efforts on reconciliation with Canada’s efforts — recognizing, of course, that they are very different contexts. Could you share with us any lessons from the successes and failures that would be useful for us?
I know that you have given us your very concrete recommendations. Are there any lessons taken from the experience of New Zealand that you would identify for us in terms of their successes and failures in this area?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, thank you very much. A few things come to mind: First, today, Māori is an official language of New Zealand. I think Indigenous languages could be made official languages of Canada or, at the very least, in the provinces where Indigenous nations reside. That would be one thing.
Second, there are guaranteed seats in Parliament for Indigenous peoples — there are seven in the case of Aotearoa New Zealand. Something like that could be looked at — at the provincial and federal levels.
Third, there are about 30 to 35 guaranteed seats for Indigenous peoples on municipal councils throughout the country. That might also be a way forward. There is also the Waitangi Tribunal, which is a permanent tribunal of inquiry looking at breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which is the founding treaty of Aotearoa New Zealand. Shin Imai and others at Osgoode Hall Law School, as well as many Indigenous leaders, have made the argument that we don’t have any such thing.
I’m saying that we need something like that. The council could reflect, in part, Waitangi Tribunal-like aspects in that it’s permanent and it’s well funded. The Waitangi Tribunal doesn’t have the kinds of judicial powers that, I think, we should have here, but aspects of that Waitangi Tribunal model would be useful. We don’t have a body to look at clear breaches of treaties or breaches of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That’s something that New Zealand does reasonably well. The settlements are kind of small. They don’t do a perfect job, but they are still a bit ahead of where we are in that way.
Those are just a few things off the top of my head that I think would be interesting to look at. There are many others, but that’s a start.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you. I’m going to start with Ms. Strongwind. When we look at the bill, clause 16(2) states:
The protocol must allow, to the extent possible, the Council to receive all the information it judges relevant to fulfill its mission.
I’m so glad you’re here because I don’t think we’ve spoken to anyone from the Sixties Scoop, or from this population of people. Inherent in the Sixties Scoop is child welfare, which is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Can you help us understand the problems that this council will have in compelling information that might be crucial to the people you represent?
Ms. Strongwind: Thank you for your question. Since we have not had a national inquiry into the Sixties Scoop, it’s very difficult to gather information regarding Sixties Scoop survivors and some of our demographics, for example. That’s part of the reason we pushed the federal government to commission a national inquiry into the Sixties Scoop.
However, we have done our best, as a non-profit organization, to reach Sixties Scoop survivors, mostly by social media. We have tried to gather as much information as we could. We also submitted a brief: You may have read that we are in partnership with Dalhousie University. We’re doing a study regarding epigenetics, and how trauma affects child welfare — not just our genes, but also our children’s genes. We know that it’s genetic. Trauma changes your genetic makeup.
As part of that, we’ve been able to gather some information from Sixties Scoop survivors, but there’s definitely a gap in information.
I think the provinces have a duty to provide some of that data to the federal government as part of their role in the Sixties Scoop. With the addition of section 88 of the Indian Act, child welfare went to the provinces. That’s where things went sideways, frankly. It was not on a good trajectory, but they really took that to heart and scooped up entire families, both on-reserve and off-reserve.
They do have some data, but it’s not put together in any collective or interpretable way, in my opinion. That’s something that the national council for reconciliation could address.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I wonder about jurisdictional issues that may arise. We would want to monitor and gather baseline data on the apprehension of children from families of origin into non-Indigenous families and into Indigenous families. Until we completely transfer the jurisdiction back to communities and Indigenous organizations, we’re not going to be able to get our hands on that data. I was wondering if you’d had any success, but it looks like it’s an ongoing issue.
Mr. MacDonald, in that same clause 16(2), I see that your second point was to have subpoena powers. Your third point is regarding the purview to include all orders of government. Could you give us any direction on how to deal with that jurisdictional conundrum that exists in Canada between the provinces and the federal government?
Mr. MacDonald: Thanks very much, senator. It’s a very messy situation in the sense that you have treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Then, the Crown breaks them into pieces, and gives Crown land and Crown responsibilities to the provinces. It’s a long, decades-old history of bait and switch. It’s completely illegitimate. I guess we have to play cleanup in the sense of figuring out what to do about that.
Whenever I look at provincial jurisdiction and the way it supersedes its authority, it makes me very angry. I’m not exactly sure how it should be done. At some level, the council has to have a purview of monitoring the Crown and the Crown government. That goes down to the provinces because the Crown has been delegated. We have lieutenant-governors, commissioners and so on in the territories. But then provincial governments, in right of the Crown, also have municipal jurisdiction. All levels of government in Canada are essentially Crown governments either directly or through delegation.
The council should have some way of overseeing that as its mandate — rather than the federal government, which I think is pretty weak; I think it’s a weak mandate to ensure the federal government is doing a good job. All levels of the Crown must be involved.
I don’t know exactly the legalities of subpoena power for the provincial or municipal governments, but something needs to be done. The original intent of the treaties, as I understand it, was that the Crown wouldn’t farm off most of the on-the-ground functions — that deal with Indigenous peoples — to other orders of government that have zero level of accountability. I just don’t think it’s acceptable.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you.
The Chair: I would just remind committee members that Ms. Strongwind’s brief was circulated to the committee on May 29.
Senator Audette: Thank you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for asking a question better than I could in English. To our colleague, I want to say thank you for sharing the importance of the many voices of those of us who were taken away in the Sixties Scoop. It also happened in our region called Quebec.
President McBride, we want to understand NWAC and the representation, or the participation. There are former mayors from Iqaluit; the well-known Madeleine Redfern; Métis women from across Canada; women who speak French as a second language; women in businesses; and keepers of the languages.
This brings a lens that says, “We are here and we need to have a voice.” But, in the discussion, what would be the impact if we cannot hear the voices of NWAC or the grassroots members who are involved with your organization? What if you are not involved when we debate the First Nations policing act that is upcoming, or bills on health and any other bills that this council may be able to follow every year? What are the best practices? What’s missing? What about the impact on women? You have space in that circle. Will it help you be a better watchdog — I don’t like that term, so maybe a better term is “watchcaribou” — on every bill that we will push through the Senate and the other chamber?
Ms. McBride: We’ll both answer this question.
We represent a lot of voices and a lot of needs across this country. We have a lot of pride in the successes of our women as well. We learn from them, and we share it. NWAC has a whole array of different data that we can use to communicate with every level of the women whom we serve. I’ll let Ms. Smith answer the rest.
Ms. Smith: Thank you, senator, for your question.
I want to complement what President McBride is saying. I want the committee to know that we take pride in the lens that we put on all of the work that we do: a culturally relevant gender-based analysis. Respectfully, I submit that the gender-based analysis of the government doesn’t go far enough. It doesn’t take into account colonialism or being trauma-informed.
That’s something that we can bring to this council, and offer to you as policy-makers. We are established in this going back to Sisters in Spirit, where we were the first to document and provide a database of the missing and murdered. That leads to an interesting discussion around data sovereignty; I think that’s a part of this discussion today as well.
Senator Audette: Through the circle, it will be a plus, or something stronger — or a lens that we might forget if you are not involved.
Senator Arnot: Ms. Strongwind, I’m sympathetic to the Sixties Scoop. I know some of those issues from my other roles, and, in particular, the documentary of the Betty Ann Adam story was very powerful and compelling.
I would think that the national council for reconciliation would have a big role to play in addressing the issues of the Sixties Scoop people and the families affected by all of it. If you are not on the council, how do you see your issues being dealt with by the national council?
Dr. MacDonald, you raised an important issue. Many witnesses talked about a well-funded council, and one of my concerns is that the funding should be long-term and sustainable. You mentioned around $600 million to $800 million; I understand that because at 5%, that would generate between $30 million and $40 million a year. This organization has been set up as a non-profit corporation. The underlying theme is that the group would have to potentially raise money at some point in order to fund some of the things they want to do, but they wouldn’t have to do this if the endowment was large enough at the very beginning. They wouldn’t have to go out and chase resources at some point.
I would like you to amplify that issue. I think it’s important, and many witnesses have talked about it.
Ms. Strongwind: Thank you, Senator Arnot, for your question. If we are not allowed a seat on the national council for reconciliation, chances are things will continue the way they are right now — where we don’t have a voice, and where we don’t have a champion or someone taking our issues forward to the federal government.
With all due respect to my colleagues sitting there, some of the PTOs that claim to represent us really haven’t. They haven’t taken our issue forward as Sixties Scoop survivors. We have unique experiences as adoptees. We don’t necessarily have the same issues as residential school survivors and day school survivors, which we know have been widely examined. It is important that we have someone with lived experience as a representative on this council for the Sixties Scoop.
If I may speak frankly, there was a settlement in 2017 that only addressed First Nations and Inuit survivors. The Métis and non-status were completely excluded from that settlement, by no fault of our own, and that set the tone for some of the representation that has happened. Rather than create any more division, we do need someone to self-represent on this council so that we have our own voice and our own perspective, if you will.
We know there is overlap between residential schools and the Sixties Scoop. Truthfully, not everyone completely understands this. Those who are elected into office don’t necessarily know some of these nuances that Sixties Scoop survivors have direct experience with.
Thank you for your question.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, senator, for your question. As you said, if you look at the previous witness statements, especially in the House of Commons, former Truth and Reconciliation commissioner Marie Wilson said, “. . . intention without certainty of resources focuses all early efforts simply on trying to find the means to function.” Two members of the transitional committee said the following: Mitch Case said, “. . . the budget won’t be big enough to do all of the things it’s being asked to do.” And Mike DeGagné said, “. . . it will not be an adequate amount of money over the course of time, but it is initially sufficient . . . .”
When you have experts such as that — these are people on the ground who have done this work before, as well as a commissioner of the TRC — saying this isn’t enough money, we have to take that seriously.
I have more detail in the expanded brief, which I am happy to circulate through the clerk to the committee. It is clear that this isn’t enough money, and that the independence and legitimacy of the council will be imperilled without a significantly larger pool of funding for it to maintain itself over a long period of time.
Senator Arnot: Please send your longer brief to the clerk.
Mr. MacDonald: I will. I have it ready to roll. I can definitely do that.
The Chair: I was going to remind our witnesses of this: If you have any additional testimony you would like to add, feel free to send it to the clerk by Friday.
Senator Greenwood: I have a question for each of you if we have time.
Mr. MacDonald, we’ve heard some concerns expressed by other witnesses, so this question encompasses some of these concerns. Do you believe that the national council for reconciliation, and the way it is currently created, will displace work on other key measures to advance reconciliation? Will it be used by governments to circumvent direct consultation or engagement with Indigenous peoples?
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, senator. Yes, it could. Last year, the Canadian Parliament recognized that they committed genocide against Indigenous peoples, and that genocide is ongoing, as the national inquiry has stated. I had a quote related to that in the longer document, which I can send.
We live in a society where genocide and the structures of genocide continue. The government and the council could be used as leverage to promote the ongoing violence of settler colonialism. I think that’s simply a given. The question is this: What safeguards are in place to ensure this doesn’t happen? If a state is carrying out genocide, and has set up institutions and structures that are committing genocide, then we need to ensure that something rigorous is set up.
I think that’s a real danger, but I think it’s also a predictable danger. We have to be realistic, and try to ensure that systems are in place to ensure that Indigenous communities are properly consulted.
All governments, and all orders of government, engage in rhetoric and find words about reconciliation. I think that in the future, every government will be expected to be the same, but ultimately, unless we have fundamental change in the way the country is governed, these problems will persist. We need to be forward-thinking and front-load with good recommendations and good structures. We must ensure that the council doesn’t provide outlets for governments to shirk their responsibilities, as well as what they should be doing.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you. Ms. McBride, if Bill C-29 is adopted as it is, with all of its acknowledged faults and imperfections, do you believe that it will advance or hinder reconciliation?
Ms. McBride: We have to work with what we have right now. We can work together, and better the situations as we go. I wouldn’t see it being erased with the progress that has been made right now.
I believe that it has to keep going, and iron out some of the problems that are there. All of us who are going to be around this table have to work as a team and with respect by using what I use every day: the Seven Grandfather Teachings, such as love, respect, honesty and not tearing one another down. Also, we need a decolonization process. We have to move away from what put us here in the first place. I hope that answers part of your question.
Senator Greenwood: Yes, thank you.
Senator Coyle: I have a question about seats at the table, which we keep talking about — who is going to be at the governing table, or the board table? We know that NWAC is going to identify somebody. How will you go about that? What criteria or process will you be using to identify who you would like to have on that council? You’re able to appoint someone to it. What do you think would make a good, ideal member of that council’s governing board?
Ms. McBride: First of all, with the way that NWAC is set up, we’re represented across the country through our PTMAs. PTMAs look after their province or territory. We’ll have to engage with the PTMAs. We have to come together to discuss how we would select a person. We definitely need a knowledgeable person from all walks of life, whether they’re Métis or someone else; it has to be someone knowledgeable and wise.
We would definitely recruit. We would definitely appoint a person who would bring a lot to the table — someone who would take what we presently have at NWAC and bring it there as well. We do have a lot to give to that table.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Coyle.
Senator Greenwood has a question that we will have Ms. Strongwind provide an answer to in writing.
Senator Greenwood: Sorry, I didn’t have a chance to ask my question earlier. Ms. Strongwind, according to the brief that was submitted to the committee, the 60s Scoop Legacy of Canada calls on the government to use the council as a means to recognize and amplify the voices of Sixties Scoop survivors. How do you envision the proposed national council for reconciliation’s role in furthering reconciliation with Sixties Scoop survivors? If you could give us ideas on that, and submit those in writing, that would be helpful. Thank you so much.
The Chair: That brings us to the end of our time for this panel, which is now complete. I wish to, again, thank all of our witnesses.
As mentioned before, I ask that everyone please keep your exchanges as brief as possible. Due to time limitations, each senator will have five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer. Priority will be given to committee members and then to other colleagues. I will also ask witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing before the end of the week.
I would like to introduce our second panel of witnesses: From Warshield, we have Max FineDay, Chief Executive Officer. We have, as an individual, Kenneth B. Young, Barrister and Solicitor. And from the Manitoba Métis Federation, we have William Goodon, Cabinet Minister.
Thank you all for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. To help keep us on time and to ensure equity for all, once you have reached the four-minute mark, I will hold up this sign to let you know that you have one minute left.
I will now invite Max FineDay to deliver his opening remarks.
Max FineDay, Chief Executive Officer, Warshield: [Cree spoken]
It’s great to be here with you, friends and relatives. I’m Max FineDay from the Sweetgrass First Nation in Treaty 6 territory in Saskatchewan. I’m the CEO of Warshield, a policy and government relations firm that works with First Nations governments and the private sector.
Today, I am speaking with you as a former member of the first iteration of the national council for reconciliation. I was appointed by Minister Bennett in 2018 to help get the national council for reconciliation set up and started. We had about six months to do this work, senators, and it was a heavy task, but we got it done. In June 2018, we tabled this report to Minister Bennett, which I think you all had the chance to, at least, peruse. Five minutes is not a lot of time, senators, so I will invite any questions regarding the process of how the first iteration of that council went about; the consultation piece; how we arrived at the number $1 billion for a financial endowment for the council; and how we engaged, or participated, in the role of non-Indigenous Canadians on the council. I’m happy to take any of those questions should senators have them.
This invitation allowed me the opportunity to reflect a little bit about that time in 2018. I was a much younger man; I was the youth representative at that time, so you can tell that time has passed. It let me reflect on the fact that there is no institution right now whose sole function is to track progress, or to hold the government accountable to the progress made — or not made — on reconciliation. As we were doing this work as a council, we wanted to focus on the practical and the tangible. We wanted to focus on the facts — and not have it be political in nature — and have it be data-driven, and have a function akin to the Auditor General.
As we were doing this work, we saw that there was the need for an organization to monitor, oversee, research, report, recommend and, even possibly, educate Canadians on the role of reconciliation in their lives. We also saw the crucial need for a body to be able to track what the government was doing, or not doing — and how it was progressing, or not progressing — in the services of Indigenous people. We were looking to establish a mechanism that not only kept the politicians accountable, but also kept the machinery of government accountable, which is a part of the conversation that we felt was so often left out. We know that all departments, and all arms of the federal government, now have a mandate to repair — or build — relationships with Indigenous people, but who is keeping an eye on this? Let’s use Global Affairs Canada as an example: What are they doing? What have you heard that Global Affairs Canada is doing as part of their reconciliation efforts? I don’t mean to pick on them; they are just one example.
More than the need for another political body, or this grandiose council that could be all things to all people, we saw the need for tangible outcomes — and the need for reconciliation auditors, if you will.
Five minutes is not a lot of time. Crees are not known for our brevity, so I will get to the point, senators. I know that you are under political constraints. I work very often in political realities and against political timelines. It’s my opinion, senators, that we need this legislation. We have a moment — we have an opportunity — and it is not a moment that is often afforded to us, or to you and your predecessors, to be able to track the progress, or possibly even the erosion, of reconciliation throughout government institutions.
I know, and I am very aware, that this is not a universal opinion that others hold. You have heard from others who aren’t sure about this legislation. We know that there are bad-faith actors who want to see this legislation fail. We’ve heard over the last number of years that some believe that reconciliation is dead, and some would rather — Indigenous and non‑Indigenous — see this legislation not pass. So you vote to either delay or stop this legislation entirely.
From council members like Grand Chief Littlechild, Jean Teillet, Clint Davis, Mike DeGagné, Edith Cloutier and others whom you have heard from, I’ve learned an incredible amount. From my own family — from my father who is a residential school survivor — I’ve learned that reconciliation is a gift that we have which was given by residential school survivors; it’s an olive branch, if you will, to Canada, saying that these difficult things happened to us, but, in a lot of instances, there was no call for punishment or retribution. We heard from a lot of survivors that they wanted things to go right. They wanted things to be better. Establishing this council is a great way to honour that gift that they have given us as a country. We can show that it is not a wasted gift, and that we have listened as a council, that institutions like your own have listened and that there is a tangible outcome that they will see in their lifetime.
[Cree spoken]
Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. FineDay. I will remind our witnesses that if there is additional testimony that you would like to provide in writing, please feel free to do so, preferably by Friday. Thank you for your remarks. Mr. Young, the floor is yours.
Kenneth B. Young, Barrister and Solicitor, as an individual: First of all, I want to thank the senators for the opportunity to present on a very important issue that affects our people.
I noticed that on the meeting agenda, I’m listed as an individual. I would like to state that I will actually be representing Indian residential school survivors in my presentation — because I am a survivor of Indian residential schools for 10 years. I am also a citizen of Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Treaty 5 territory in the province of Manitoba.
In reviewing the legislation, in particular the preamble, I came to the conclusion that while there is reference to the word “reconciliation” in the preamble, it doesn’t define what reconciliation is. I think it’s very important for a definition of the word “reconciliation” to be included in the body of the legislation because then it would be enforceable. Words in the preamble are not legally enforceable. I suggest very strongly that there be a definition for “reconciliation” included in the body of the legislation.
Going forward, my position is this: The Indian residential school issue is an issue that impacted First Nations people in a very significant way — 92% of the people who attended Indian residential schools were First Nations children. The Catholic Church built schools on Indian land to house Indian students — First Nations students. The policy that created the Indian residential schools was to kill the Indian in the child. The Indian Act was used to have religious organizations sign agreements to run and administer these Indian residential schools.
The Indian residential school issue is not an Indigenous issue — it’s a First Nations issue. Therefore, since the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement was negotiated by the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, on behalf of Indian residential school survivors, I can also state that the AFN represented the Métis National Council at the negotiating table because we were asked to represent the Métis National Council. The agreement that we negotiated was signed by the AFN, the Inuit, the churches and Canada. I think that whatever comes of this legislation, it has to be driven and led by First Nations people, in particular First Nations survivors. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Young. I will now invite William Goodon to deliver his opening remarks.
William Goodon, Cabinet Minister, Manitoba Métis Federation: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, I am very pleased to be here representing the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF, which is the national government of the Red River Métis. I acknowledge that I join you today on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial. My name is Will Goodon. I am a minister of the MMF cabinet.
As we always do — and I’m going off my script a little bit here — we introduce ourselves, as well as where we’re from and who we’re related to. I’m from the Turtle Mountains in what is now southwest Manitoba. I’m a Red River Métis. My grandmother was actually from the North Dakota side of the Turtle Mountains. My grandfather was from the Canadian side. Both are residential school survivors. My grandmother went to South Dakota. My grandfather went to a residential school in Canada, and he had to run away. He had to go back and get his little sister in order to save her.
I have relatives right across our homeland. As is the case whenever a Red River Métis person meets another Métis person, you always compare your genealogies and find out that you are second or third cousins, and that’s usually the way we introduce ourselves.
I’m here to make known the MMF’s views of Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act. Previously, my colleague and MMF ambassador Clément Chartier appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to discuss this bill, and I believe that my statement here today will build on his testimony.
My government is pleased with the legislation enacted by Canada over the last number of years, in particular the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Its preamble refers to Indigenous peoples — which includes us, the historical Métis Nation, who have “lived in the lands that are now in Canada with their distinct identities, cultures and ways of life” — and states that Canada rejects all forms of colonialism. We are also pleased with our renewed government-to-government, nation-to-nation relationship with Canada, and we look forward to concluding the Red River Métis Self‑Government Recognition and Implementation Treaty. It is with this spirit of working together that we wish to move forward and conclude the unfinished business of reconciliation between the Red River Métis and Canada.
While our government understands the intent of this bill in forming a national council for reconciliation — in fulfillment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action 53 to 56 — it remains problematic from the perspective of my government.
I will begin with the technical language of the bill in clause 10, which sets out the nominations for membership on the council’s board of directors. Clause 10(1) states that the board is to include four directors who may only be elected after having been nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, or MNC, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada. A director nominated by the National Government of the Red River Métis is notably absent.
As you are aware, the MMF cut ties with the MNC in 2021 due to the MNC abandoning the national definition of Métis and, hence, the Métis Nation. The MNC, through its affiliate the Métis Nation of Ontario, continues to allow non-Métis to become members of the Métis Nation. The Red River Métis are the only Indigenous people to establish a province. In 1870, the Red River Métis became Canada’s negotiating partner in Confederation and the founder of Manitoba. Through our treaty with Canada, our homeland became what is known today as Western Canada — the Prairie provinces.
The MNC does not and cannot represent the Red River Métis. We are a unique and distinct Indigenous people and nation. We have our own voice. The MNC is a pan-Indigenous organization that’s no different from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who are also excluded from this bill. The bill ignores democratically elected Indigenous governments such as the MMF — who represent rights holders — and abandons the principle of building nation-to-nation relationships.
Clause 12(1)(c) further muddies the water. The language of the bill states that the board must include, to the extent possible, representation from Indigenous organizations, as defined in section 2 of the Department of Indigenous Services Act, to reflect the diversity of arrangements that govern relationships between Indigenous communities and the Government of Canada. This definition includes governments. It is notable that the board of directors is not required to have members nominated by Indigenous governments, but it is required to include the organizations listed in clause 10(1). From my government’s perspective, this could result in the absence of the Red River Métis voice, and create the type of politicized environment that a national council for reconciliation must avoid.
When asked if my government will support this bill, the answer is neither a simple “yes,” nor a simple “no.” Its passage will not be determined by our support. However, we will not participate in or support a national council for reconciliation that will exclude Red River Métis citizens. Therefore, my government recommends that the bill be amended to address and reverse the egregious exclusion of the MMF — the national government of the Red River Métis. The MMF supports the federal government’s efforts that advance reconciliation; however, Bill C-29 does not meet our standard for this.
We will continue to represent the Red River Métis across our homeland, and we will work in good faith to advance reconciliation using a distinctions-based, government-to-government and nation-to-nation approach. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goodon. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: My question is directed to Mr. FineDay.
Mr. FineDay, my opinion is that the national council for reconciliation will probably be the most important institution to promote, measure and advance reconciliation over the course of the next few decades. Since you were on the interim board originally, does Bill C-29 reflect the vision that you personally had for this council?
And, if you have a chance, I would like you to amplify the issue of the endowment. An endowment of $1 billion sounds like a lot of money, but not if it’s in relation to the task at hand, and what has to be done. You are not the first witness to say that it’s really important to have a funding level that will sustain this work for those few decades that we can foresee.
I would like you to amplify any of those thoughts, for my edification and my Senate colleagues’ edification.
Mr. FineDay: I don’t know of a perfect piece of legislation that exists. Certainly, as senators, you have seen this government’s ambitious legislative agenda when it comes to issues of concern for Indigenous people.
In our final report, a draft bill was added as an annex to guide the legislative drafters and the government based on what we saw, what we heard and what we hoped to see in the legislation.
There are going to be bumps and challenges in coordination. My background is in First Nations politics, and that’s 633 nations. When you add in other constitutionally recognized groups, that makes it all the more complex.
This bill will do what we need it to do: hold the government to account on the measuring of how reconciliation is going. We have seen some non-profits and civil society actors try to engage in that work. It’s limited in scope and nature, and it doesn’t give the broad overview that we need to see, particularly coming from the government.
On the issue of the endowment, $126 million — which, I think, was in the budget for the national council for reconciliation — simply doesn’t do the job that we recommended, namely, to allow for the council to be financially independent from the government. Whoever is hired as the first executive director or leader of this council will have to go back to the government and ask for another allocation in future budgets. This isn’t an ideal situation.
If you look at what is there, I think it is $1.5 million in funding for the first year of operation. I don’t know how many of you have been in the private sector running non-profits, but that’s not a lot of money. I know that it seems like a lot of money individually, but it’s not enough money to establish a secretariat, to do a comprehensive strategy and communications plan or to ensure that there is buy-in — not only from Indigenous people, but also from all of Canada.
They will need to be a really good lobbyist, and hopefully a neighbour of the Minister of Finance, in order to try to obtain the resources needed to ensure this council has the money it needs to do its work. I’m hopeful that the goal of a $1-billion endowment isn’t lost with whoever the inaugural council and director are, and that it’s a goal that they continue to work toward.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses in the room and on the screen with us tonight.
I have so many questions. Perhaps I’ll also start with you, Mr. FineDay.
You say that we need this legislation. I don’t think that anybody at this table would disagree with you. Frankly, just about everybody we’ve talked to has said that we need this legislation.
I believe you said the original recommendation — and you stand by it — is that there should be Indigenous and non‑Indigenous representation on the council, which is great.
You mentioned this idea of some bad actors. There are always bad actors. But there are also some good actors who have problems with this. We are now at the point of wanting to get this going; it’s been a long time coming. We need this. Yet, some of our national Indigenous political organizations — this is not going to be a political body — will have a say and a stake in this, and they will be asked to appoint people to this board, et cetera. So far, a couple of them have told us that — in its current status and the way things are going — they are not ready to say, “Let’s go with this.” They are not ready to jump on board. They are not bad actors at all.
What would you say to that? What would be a pathway forward?
Mr. FineDay: I would say that I’m glad I’m not a senator, and that I don’t have to make this decision.
We say that this shouldn’t be a political body. We say that this isn’t a political process. But, of course, this is inherently political work. There are very legitimate concerns by political actors who will be implicated in the work of the national council for reconciliation.
I am good friends with the national Indigenous organization, or NIO, leaders, and I have talked to them about this process. I’m a risk-averse person. We have uncertainty in our political landscape right now, just as we would in any minority Parliament. That’s not a partisan comment. I work with all stripes along the political spectrum. This has made it through the House of Commons, which is an extraordinary feat. It has made it through a couple of readings here with you folks, which is an extraordinary feat. This will come down to it being a difficult decision. Is it better to have the national council for reconciliation — and work to make leaders more comfortable once it’s been established through a number of processes — or is it better to not have it? I hate to put it in such black-and-white terms.
Of course, there is always the option to delay, to have more consultations and to engage more with the NIOs. I came to Ottawa in 2015 and worked at the AFN. It’s not often that one party, group or body — political or in civil society — says they have been consulted enough. I say that with a great deal of respect for all of these bodies who do very important work.
It’s my opinion that we need this legislation. I would rather see this passed — and see this continue to be worked on in an honest and earnest way — than risk not having it at all.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses this evening. Mr. FineDay, my question is for you. I feel like Senator Arnot and I were focusing on some similar points.
You caught my attention when you said this council is like the reconciliation auditor; that was very clear for me. But then I looked at the bill, specifically clauses 6 and 7, which outline the purpose and functions of the council — it’s quite an extensive list.
I have a similar question regarding what is in the bill and the task at hand for the council — which is really broad, including to protect Indigenous language rights and to educate the public. It’s a tall order. . I was going to ask whether what you recommended and what is in the bill is according to the vision and focus that the interim board may have had.
Mr. FineDay: Thank you, senator, for that question.
The answer is “yes.” I don’t have a problem with the scope being so large because I would hate for a council, whether it’s the first or the twenty-third iteration of it, to be too confined or constrained in its scope.
I think that this council and this legislation allow for the function of auditing government services, departments, statistics and these sorts of things — and to not be too limited in its scope. We don’t want to be put in a position where they are unable to complete work that they deem important in a given time. Again, we don’t know how reconciliation is going to evolve over the next 3, 10 or 25 years. Reconciliation today looks a lot different than it did when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission started way back when I was still in university.
I take your question, but I think it’s better that the scope is broader than narrower.
Senator Martin: I will trust you and your insights to a certain extent, but it looks like a very tall order. I hope that the council will take it step by step. As you say, broad will be less restrictive and allow the council to do its work.
Mr. Goodon, in our previous panel, I quoted the sponsor of the bill in the House who said:
. . . we used a collaborative approach to develop Bill C-29. Engagement with indigenous leaders and communities was integral to the process every step along the way.
In your testimony, it’s clear that you have been excluded.
Would you speak to this quote, and perhaps elaborate on what you said during your testimony?
Mr. Goodon: Yes, I absolutely can.
The pattern of this federal government is not similar to some of the past ones, but in the past, the word “consultation,” and the duty to consult, was bastardized, if you’ll allow me to use that word. If an Indigenous person is walking down the street, and you ask them, “What do you think about the hydro dam over here?” — that’s consultation. Perhaps it’s not quite to that extent, but it’s fairly obvious in the remarks that I made here today that the focus was mostly on the NIOs, and the fact that the MNC is no longer a voice for the Métis Nation because it is allowing non-Métis people to become citizens in their organizations. The Red River Métis, who are the people of Riel and Gabriel Dumont, will have no voice. From my understanding, we had little to no consultation on this bill; otherwise, we could have raised this much earlier. As I said, my colleague Ambassador Clément Chartier raised it in the House committee, but it didn’t seem to have the effect that we had desired.
Again, it’s not the federal government’s mandate to become involved in Métis politics — they wouldn’t want to because it gets a little rough and tumbled — but, at the same time, the federal government needs to recognize that without the voice of the Red River Métis, who are recognized in section 35 of the Constitution, there will be a huge gaping hole at the table.
The Chair: I’m going to jump in because Mr. Young hasn’t had a chance to provide any comments, so I’m going to give him a chance now to see if he has anything to add.
Mr. Young: It’s interesting. I took the time to review the legislation, and I recommended that the board of directors not have the absolute authority to put together an action plan without talking to the other players identified in Canada’s Constitution — the Métis, the Inuit and the First Nations people — because those people will have the opportunity to define what their existing rights are, which are recognized and affirmed in Canada’s Constitution.
The Indian residential school survivors, at the behest of the Catholic Bishops of Canada, requested a one-pager on what reconciliation requires. The word “reconciliation” has been thrown about for quite some time now. My concern is this: Five or six years down the road, unless it’s defined in the legislation and it’s legally binding, the word “reconciliation” will become a thing of the past. In their statements, the survivors stated that real reconciliation is not going to happen unless Aboriginal people — whose rights are recognized in the Constitution of Canada — are given the opportunity to identify, define and negotiate an implementation strategy with Canada, the provincial governments and the territorial governments. If that doesn’t happen, the issues that our people are talking about today — the poverty, the land issue and the treaties that are not implemented — will be issues 20 years down the road.
I believe that it’s an opportune time for Canada and the provinces to sit down with each of the Aboriginal groups to negotiate their framework agreement on an implementation strategy. I know that is a big issue, but, in my opinion, it has to get done. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Young.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Mr. Young, my question for you was answered, but what do you think is the critical role of survivors in the council? Do you see the board of directors being made up of survivors, or were you thinking about a survivors’ council — perhaps like an elders’ council — that would advise the board of directors? Where do you see the critical role of survivors in this organization?
Mr. Young: I believe that the board of directors of the national council for reconciliation should consist of a majority of First Nations people, preferably survivors, because the Indian residential school issue caused what we are talking about right now — where First Nations people were impacted the most. That should not be a contentious issue.
I think that it’s a responsible position to take, and if it requires more discussion among the people and the government, then that should happen.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My second question is for Mr. Goodon. I’m a Métis from Alberta, and my family is from Red River. I’ve had conversations with my good friend Audrey Poitras, and I’ve talked to Dave Chartrand. When Indigenous people wrest away the ability to define who we are from the government, then we will have disagreements.
I think it was fantastic that you helped people on the committee understand that the Métis are working it out, and I choose to believe that one day we will all figure that out together.
Aside from the identity things occurring in our own work, do you see value in the council being able to establish baseline information, as well as monitor and measure as we go in order to see how the government is working with Indigenous peoples — those people who are defined in our Constitution — but also, more broadly, people from vulnerable populations who need to be acknowledged? Do you see a benefit or value in that? Does MMF see that we need to come together, as Indigenous people, in a council like this, and take control of our own data and the story that data tells?
Mr. Goodon: Those are great questions. Before I answer that, I want to touch upon a couple of things that were said previously in the testimony.
In terms of the Métis National Council, I was intimately involved with it for a long time. It did not ask the Assembly of First Nations to represent them on the residential school survivors and settlement issue. That was a bit of an error that was said there.
As well, I do think that having historic Métis Nation representation on a council like this is absolutely necessary, as I’ve said in my remarks. I would hate to see the council become focused on an important issue, but only one issue. Reconciliation is broader than a couple of the tragedies that happened in the past. If you look at what happened to our people, Canada went to war with us, and I don’t know if they have said sorry yet. That is something that could be reconciled. They took our lands away from us. There are a lot of things that happened.
And when you look at what happened to the Inuit, we could speak for many hours here about the tragedies and the horrible things that were happening up there.
I do agree with you that there is value. In fact, I think that our government absolutely agrees that it’s extremely important, as you said, to establish baselines, monitor the data and understand the different issues that different Indigenous nations and governments have with respect to their relationship with the Crown, or their relationship with our country.
I would be hesitant to say whether that would be helpful for the Red River Métis without knowing who would be representing that Métis voice. If that Métis voice was from one of these new communities in Ontario with no connection to the historic Métis Nation, that would be extremely problematic for us because there would be no connection to us.
In regard to what you are saying, we 100% support the concept and the premise, but we’re concerned about making it work.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me be so stubborn.
Mr. Young: Mr. Chair, I want to correct what Mr. Goodon has said. The Assembly of First Nations was requested by the MNC to negotiate the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Métis people of Canada, as well as the First Nations people.
The Chair: We will have you provide your testimony in writing. We still have a list of senators here that we have to go through. Thank you for your comment, though.
Mr. Young: I will do that. Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to the witnesses. I have sat through several witnesses’ testimonies — everyone brings up the makeup of the council, and offers us all kinds of recommendations, which I think is great because they are coming from diverse perspectives. I’m going to ask that question, but in a different way.
What advice would you give around constructing a council that’s inclusive? There are many organizations, and perhaps it’s the structure itself. I would like all three of you to respond with one or two points of advice that you would give. If you were in charge and you had to do this, what advice would you give us to think about, to design and to create? Can I start with you, Mr. FineDay?
Mr. FineDay: Oh, my goodness, senator; I thought you might be liking me, but now I know that’s not the case.
I have a real luxury here. I’m not representing a certain constituency. I’m not representing anybody but myself and my role in this council. The legislation, as it’s written, allows for three constitutionally recognized groups, plus the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and it also goes into great detail about other areas that should be looked at and considered when making up the council. I think that we can live with those parameters and those statistical indicators that have been set out in the legislation.
We know, statistically speaking, that if you go into a band office, 9 times out of 10, the majority of the directors are women, and an increasing number of the band managers are women, and an increasing number of chiefs — we just passed a high-water mark in Saskatchewan — are women as well. I’m pleased to see the Native Women’s Association of Canada on that secured representation.
I understand why organizations like Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and the AFN Women’s Council would not agree with their specific inclusion on the board. I can only imagine the testimony that you have heard from different constituency groups saying that they demand representation on this board.
My mom is Norwegian and my dad is from Sweetgrass, so I’m tempted to say there should be a very cute boy from Sweetgrass, who is also half Norwegian, on the council as well. I’m not going to do that.
As Indigenous people, we love to create assemblies. We’re really good at it. We default back to it as a governance structure and say, “Okay, this piece is mine. You can have that piece, but it’s over there. This piece is mine.” We sort of get territorial about it.
I would love if we could, for a brief moment in time, rise above the identity politics and the representational politics. You’ll see that in regard to what I’m speaking to, I’m weighed down on one side. That’s the chip on my shoulder: being from Saskatchewan when I’m in Ottawa. Everybody has their thing.
This work is so important that I’m hopeful we can briefly suspend these little sandbox disagreements that we often have, and, again, I have a great deal of respect for elected leadership, NIOs and these sorts of things. But this work is so important, and I keep coming back to the clock ticking and your limited time in being able to pass this legislation.
The Chair: We’re out of time. We have three senators left but only five minutes, so I’m trying to include everyone. If you could ask your question, perhaps ask for the answer in writing. It might help everyone get their question in.
Senator Audette: I’ll try to ask my question in English.
For me, coming from a grassroots perspective or passion, it has been a long journey for this bill and about who should sit where. Minister Goodon, I have been learning and listening from you that you also have a right, and your people have a right. Perhaps we could put somewhere in the bill that there is an accountability with your nation — with your people — and they come every year. Every year, at AFN — Mr. Young, I remember you at AFN — the commissioner was coming and giving reports. Perhaps we can oblige or give that responsibility at council, where they must go to you and create that conversation, and a space for your nation and your people as well until it is settled; or if it is not settled, you have that space. I’m a strong believer that the way we are structured, we fight amongst us — and the agenda over there is without us.
Mr. Goodon: That’s an amazing question that dovetails into the other senators’ questions as well. Yes, I honestly think there are ways to do this. Going back to one of the first questions — which I think Senator Martin asked — it is about consultation. If there would have been a conversation with our government to find a solution, although it’s not perfect, it still might be helpful. It might have value, as was suggested before. I have great respect for my colleague Max FineDay wanting to move things forward, and we have issues that we want to move forward. We want our treaty to be in legislation this fall, and hopefully senators will support that when it comes there. But, at the same time, as has been said many times today, it will be an extremely important body — and I think there would have to be an agreement between our governments on how this will be set up. I think conversations need to happen sooner rather than later.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
The Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I wish to, again, thank the witnesses for joining us this evening. We really appreciate your testimony.
(The committee adjourned.)