THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 19, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor’s note: Please note that this transcript may contain strong language and addresses sensitive matters that may be difficult to read.]
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. It is also home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I welcome everyone back after the summer. I am grateful to be back in Ottawa with you to resume our weekly meetings. I look forward to going forward with the committee’s work in a good way in the coming weeks and months.
I will now invite committee members to introduce themselves by stating their name and the province or territory in which they reside. We will start with our deputy chair.
Senator Arnot: I’m Senator David Arnot. I’m from Saskatchewan. I live in Saskatoon, which is in the heart of Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from British Columbia. Treaty 6 territory is my homeland.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Before we proceed, I want to note that the content of this meeting relates to the Indian residential schools, which some might find distressing. There is support available for anyone requiring assistance, at all times, free of charge, via the National Residential School Crisis Line at 1-866-925-4419 and Hope for Wellness at 1-800-721-0066 or at www.hopeforwellness.ca.
I want to give you some background about today. You might recall that, last March, this committee heard from the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the Office of the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools regarding their respective work honouring, amplifying and uncovering the truth about the residential school system and its painful and lasting impacts.
Based on that testimony, last July, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples issued an interim report entitled Honouring the Children Who Never Came Home: Truth, Education and Reconciliation. One of the recommendations made in that interim report included a commitment to hold a public hearing with governments, church entities and others that continue to withhold records about residential schools and associated sites. In the second panel, we will begin to hear from those witnesses. In preparation for that testimony, in this first panel, we will hear from experts with knowledge and experience of records related to residential schools, day schools and related institutions.
From Know History, we have Chief Executive Officer Ryan Shackleton, and as an individual, Edward G. Sadowski, Researcher. Wela’lin. Thank you 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 senators.
I now invite Ryan Shackleton to give his opening remarks.
Ryan Shackleton, Chief Executive Officer, Know History: Good morning, everyone, and thank you very much for having me here. It is an honour to be here.
Know History is a historical research firm with offices here in Ottawa and in Calgary. We have about 60 historians working with us. We have worked with Inuit, Métis and First Nations throughout Canada for the last decade on hundreds of projects, but in the last two years, we have increasingly been asked to support our clients in the search for truth about what happened to the children taken to residential schools. Our clients include the Mohawk Institute Survivors’ Secretariat, and First Nations in Alberta, the Yukon, Ontario and Manitoba.
While survivor memory and experience are the foremost record of this shameful history, there are many archival sources that contribute to our understanding of the past. Communities want more than a list of names of missing children; they want to know why this happened, what life was like for children at those institutions and, of course, where the missing children are buried. There is no single source that will provide all of this information. Instead, the evidence is found in many places — perhaps thousands of little pieces of data collected from dozens of archives across Canada and internationally.
Indigenous people encounter tremendous obstacles in accessing, collecting and reviewing archival records in Canada. As Roberta Hill, a Mohawk from Six Nations, reminds me, they are her records; they are the story of her experiences.
I would like to share with you today just some of the issues we have faced. In one instance, we consulted with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC, which advised us to submit an ATIP request, Access to Information and Privacy, under a certain section of the privacy legislation. Ten months later, CIRNAC responded and told us the request could not be fulfilled because it was not a part of an active claim. A year after our initial request, we have been advised that it will take at least three more months to process, but I suspect it will take longer. That is 15 months to look at documents.
In another instance, we submitted a request for information and received it very quickly from Library and Archives Canada. It was within three months. However, the information and the names on it were all redacted. Because this is about looking for the names of missing children, it was essentially useless to us.
I have been told by ATIP officers that they prioritize requests for ongoing litigation claims. Unfortunately, the search for missing children and unmarked burials is not deemed to be as pressing as cases for litigation.
In another project, even though we had a settlement agreement in place, the institution hid behind privacy legislation that prevents our team from accessing patients’ medical records or hospital staff records. If we cannot identify who went missing, how could we possibly identify where they are buried?
We are professional researchers, and this is not a matter of finding documents; it’s a matter of accessing documents and collecting data.
There is something called “departmental researcher status.” That provides a researcher with access to all of a department’s files. I have held this status for various departments in the past. It allows me to simply order up some files and go look at them within a few days. For Indigenous people without that departmental researcher status, it can take them more than a year to look at exactly the same files. However, again, they will be redacted when they see them. These are documents about their experience and their parents’ experiences. These are documents that can help us find the missing graves, but they are largely inaccessible.
Many years ago, I worked for the Qikiqtani Truth Commission. It faced the same hurdles we are facing today. Library and Archives Canada’s solution then was to provide us unfiltered access to all of the files and then let us identify which were relevant to send through ATIP. That placed the burden of work on us, and it allowed us to get through files quickly without having to submit hundreds of ATIP requests. Privacy was protected, and we were not slowed down by the bureaucracy of ATIP. There are solutions like this out there, and we need to identify them.
I am fearful that this situation will only get worse. As you know, and as was pointed out in your report, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, NCTR, is the key repository for information about residential schools. It currently holds 5 million records, perhaps more, but the government is undergoing a process now to transmit 25 million documents to the NCTR in the next four to five years. There is no transparency in this process. Despite my inquiries, I have not been able to determine what is deemed as a record nor who is determining what is relevant. If a child is sent from a residential school to a hospital and dies months later, or if the child is sent home because she is sick and dies there, would those related materials be included, or would they be outside of the scope because it didn’t happen at a residential school? How are we preparing for the transfer of 25 million documents? Will the NCTR’s funding be increased to deal with a collection five times the size of its current collection? Will communities be given resources to allow them to do more research and complete these stories?
In closing, I would humbly encourage the government of Canada to revisit the legislation and Privacy Act. Indigenous people have a right to see the records created about them — to see the records of what happened to their children after they were stolen from their homes. The barriers that are being erected need to be abolished. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shackleton. I invite Mr. Sadowski to give his submission.
Edward G. Sadowski, Researcher, as an individual: Thank you. I used to be a research coordinator at the Shingwauk Residential Schools Centre at Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie, the Robinson-Huron 1850 Treaty territory. I work closely with the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, national Indian Residential School Survivors Society and currently with the Children of Shingwauk Alumni Association. I have a prepared statement that I would like to make to the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I am pleased to provide this summary and share with you a different perspective regarding some of the issues surrounding truth, reconciliation and honouring all residential school children.
The majority of residential school records for Indigenous children no longer exist. This issue came into focus during the implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and continues to this day. Missing and destroyed records impacted the recognition and amount of compensation that residential school survivors received. Canada began destroying residential school records in 1936 and continued to destroy records right up to the signing of the settlement agreement.
Common Experience Payments program statistics reveal that over 50% of CEP applicants received less compensation than they had applied for. Many were denied compensation because Canada stated that they could not confirm their residency for the period that they were in a residential school. What survivors were not told is that Canada did not have any records that could either confirm or deny their claim.
Independent Assessment Process records created from claimants’ testimonies made during their IAP hearings are confidential. However, IAP School Narratives created by Canada that summarize documents that provide an overview of the history and administration of each residential school are not confidential. These narratives reveal the quality and quantity of the records used in IAP hearings. Canada has refused to release any of the full and final IAP School Narratives, along with their related records. The paucity of residential school records was not considered when arguments were made before the court over the destruction of claimants’ IAP records.
Many records made available to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples dealing with child abuse as well as the deaths of residential school children were never released to the TRC. Access to Information documents reveal that these records may no longer exist.
Many individuals requested to have other institutions recognized as residential schools under Article 12. Over 1500 applications were made, and very few institutions were added to the official list. Records for the Timber Bay Indian residential school, the Île-à-la-Crosse Boarding School, the Fort William Indian Hospital (Sanatorium) School and many other Indian hospital schools were some of the institutions that were rejected and whose records were destroyed by Canada prior to the settlement agreement.
We do not know the names of all the children who were sent to each residential school. These residential school children must also be considered as missing. They need to be identified. Indigenous researchers need help in creating residential school student registers. In order to honour and remember every residential school child, other historical records held by Canada must be identified and made available.
Canadian and Indian Affairs Census records include the names of all residential school children who were in each residential school during the time of each census. Indian Register records were used to help validate claims in the settlement agreement. Treaty, annuity and interest distribution pay lists, along with Indian Band membership lists, were also used to create the Indian Registrar’s genealogical database. These records identify many residential school children and also reveal if the death of a residential school child resulted in the extinction of an entire family.
The Indian Act allowed treaty and annuity/interest monies to be used to help pay for the maintenance of children while they were at a residential school and for the schools themselves. Available Indian Trust Fund records show that residential school children paid for their own funerals when they died at a residential school. Indigenous peoples subsidized their own genocide from their own savings accounts.
During the final stages of the drafting of the Genocide Convention in 1948, Canada directed its diplomatic delegation in Geneva to oppose the inclusion of any acts of cultural genocide in the treaty. However, the Genocide Convention was adopted and included one reference to cultural genocide that Canada opposed, the act of “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Canada signed the Genocide Convention without reservations in 1949 and declared that it fulfilled its treaty obligations to implement the convention in 1970. However, the Criminal Code amendments that were made only included two out of the five acts of genocide as found in Article II. Missing is the act of “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
It is time for the Senate to address the troubling narrative of residential school denialism that was created by Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Sadowski.
I now open the floor to questions from senators. I go to my deputy chair, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses who are here today.
I want to say to Treaty Commissioner Mary Musqua-Culbertson from the Office of the Treaty Commissioner of Saskatchewan that I look forward to hearing from her because I know she has reasoned advice for this committee which I hope we can explore with her in the future.
These records that you can’t get access to are very important for the families, survivors, survivors’ families and for reconciliation. All Canadians should question, as the Senate is doing today, why organizations who were charged with the responsibility for the lives of Indigenous children have not been forthcoming. We think we might know some of the answers for this conduct, purposeful obfuscation, stonewalling and stalling with respect to these records, but I would like you to proffer your opinion as to why you think that is the case.
Second, what remedy would you propose would be the most effective one that this committee could make in terms of ensuring that researchers such as yourselves and organizations and individuals you work for have access to the records you need to tell the truth?
Mr. Shackleton: Thank you for the question, senator.
I have never met a librarian or archivist who went into the profession to prevent people getting access to files. Every librarian and archivist I met at Library and Archives Canada and other institutions wants to get people access to files. They want to transfer knowledge. But they are stuck behind legislation, and that’s the privacy legislation.
Basically, if there is a name of someone — and it depends on which province or if it is federally — on a document that’s not 100 years old, it can be considered potentially that it is private information, because that person is alive and you are not allowed to share that information, which doesn’t necessarily align with the collective responsibility of an Indigenous organization in that they are working on behalf of their community to get this information. But everything is being blacked out. The only way for them to do it would be to get every single person to sign a document that traces back and says you can release this information, but we can’t even see what the information is to find out who the people are that need to sign those documents. It is a Catch-22. I do not blame the institutions at all, but I do blame the policy in that they have no way to work around it. Otherwise, they are not doing their job and they could be terminated or found guilty of something. I think that’s the one place we need to change.
As I mentioned in my comments, if Indigenous nations were able to get departmental researcher status — the same as you would with the Department of National Defence or the Department of Justice — and have the same responsibility of keeping the information private until it goes through Access to Information and Privacy, or ATIP, I think that could speed things along quite significantly.
Mr. Sadowski: Indigenous intellectual property rights were never given up in any treaty. These records belong to Indigenous people. We’re working with colonial structures that prevent Indigenous people from accessing their own records.
In my comments, I indicated that Canada has refused to release any of the full and final IAP School Narratives. When I say “Canada,” I also include the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Office of the Information Commissioner does not disclose many of the final reports online. The one copy of a report that I distributed to the committee is an example of that, and that has not been posted online. It is a damning report against the Department of Justice for actually declining to release records — period.
The same situation currently exists with CIRNAC. For example, just last month, I received an updated email message from the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding accessing school narratives from CIRNAC. It says:
Hello again, Mr. Sadowski. I received word from CIRNAC. CIRNAC has stated that it will not process the records — period. I am therefore drafting a section 35 request for representations to be sent from OIC management to CIRNAC management. I will keep you updated.
These are the issues that researchers have been — that I’ve been — involved with for over 20 years: trying to get access to records now. It would be almost impossible for a small Indigenous group to try to access these records when, actually, the Department of Justice and CIRNAC are just saying, “No, we will not release the records — period. If you don’t like it, take us to Federal Court.” We are working within a structure that is totally dysfunctional. I don’t have any solutions for that. It’s your job to sort that out. I’m sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation. The government — both the Office of the Information Commissioner and all these others, especially the Department of Justice and CIRNAC — just doesn’t want to release the records, and they are being very clear about it — period. So what can you do about it?
The Chair: I wonder if you could comment on what kind of skills are needed to identify records related to the residential schools. Do you know if the provincial and federal governments as well as the oblates have retained skilled personnel to research where records may be held and how they are organized?
Mr. Sadowski: Time — if you have a lot of time on your hands. There are a lot of Indigenous researchers out there across Canada, from many residential schools. They all have different levels of education, but many have the heart to try and find out what happened to their families and individuals within their communities. It is just a matter of getting the records to them. They know what to do. It is just that they don’t have the resources — financial as well as understanding how to try to get around the bureaucracy, especially when you have departments that are just adamantly refusing to release records. Indigenous people have the skills. They currently have that. They are just waiting for these records to be released.
I outlined to you a number of the records that should be made available that are not deemed to be relevant records by Canada, but this information is there and it should be accessed. It should be made available to Indigenous people across Canada in order to honour the children who died at residential schools.
Mr. Shackleton: Just to build on that, relevancy is so key here. For every nation looking for their children and their stories, what they want to know is very different. There is not some pan-Indigenous approach to getting the history of residential schools. Some communities we’ve worked with want to know everything, and other communities want to know about medical experimentation. I don’t think the government has the capability to do that. It has to be a community-led initiative, and they can’t do it if they don’t have access to the records to research and follow the trails that historians follow.
The Chair: Thank you both.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you, everybody, for being here. I certainly also look forward to seeing Treaty Commissioner Musqua-Culbertson in the future. I will direct my questions to Mr. Shackleton, and then we’ll see if I have time to ask for additional comments from our other witness.
You’ve done a good job, but maybe you can elaborate further. Maybe it is just an opportunity for you to make the point again on explaining — you just spoke to it again in this last answer — the types of information. I think that what I am hearing is that not everybody is looking for the same information. However, people are looking forward to bringing closures to family.
I am curious for you to again elaborate on the justification for not providing the records. I think you’ve spoken a couple of times to the Privacy Act — that this is the legislation at play. Do you agree that the wording currently in the Privacy Act is stopping these employees from doing what they in their hearts would maybe like to do but can’t? Does the act needs to be changed? I think you said that in your comments. Or is there an opportunity for some kind of exemption for this specific type of information with respect to the residential schools?
Lastly, in your opinion — and I think Senator Arnot kind of alluded to this — what is the fear? What do you believe is the fear in releasing this information?
Mr. Shackleton: To start with the types of information, it is different for every community because each residential school had a different history.
In one community, we might need to access files from the Department of National Defence because they had a shooting range next to the residential school, and there are accusations that children were killed at that shooting range. In another case, we need to access the medical records associated with the institution where children were sent. Increasingly, as we get into the 1940s and 1950s, we see these institutions being used more as penal institutions. They threatened people: if the mother has a beer, we will take her children away, those types of things. They were used as a reformatory in many cases. Therefore, it is different.
These records are not just held at CIRNAC or Library and Archives Canada. There has to be a much larger position around medical records, community records and municipal records. The churches need to hand over more. The churches have not handed over everything, and we have evidence of that. So it is a wide variety, and I would not limit it. I think the best place to start is with the federal institutions, but it must go broader.
I’m not an expert on policy, but I will say there is a statement within the Privacy Act in ATIP where it says that records can be released for the greater good or some kind of terminology around that. Who defines that? Can we say that this would be for the greater good?
Lastly — and I’m not a conspiracy theorist — I do believe people are afraid of being sued for releasing records. Departments don’t want to have court cases brought against them for invasion of privacy. I do understand that, and as an individual, I want my privacy respected. However, it goes back to that greater good. Is there a way to access these and still keep information private?
To touch quickly on that departmental researcher status, we do have contracts with the government. We have secret clearance. I can go in one day and order a file and look at that file, but if I am working for my Indigenous client, it can take me over a year to look at exactly the same file. I am the same researcher with the same laptop and the same security protocols.
Senator Sorensen: Does Mr. Sadowski have a comment?
Mr. Sadowski: Yes. The issue is that the legislation in the Privacy Act does not need to be changed because there is a section in the Privacy Act that allows the minister to release these records to Indigenous groups if they have an issue with the government. I’m not clear on the wording, but the minister has the authority. We reached out to the minister to do that exact same thing, to release records that were over 100 years old for two boys who drowned in a pond near the Shingwauk school. It was over 100 years ago, and the minister never exercised that authority. We never heard back from the minister about that. In the legislation, it allows the government to release these records to Indigenous groups. That’s not being followed. It’s like in the access to information requests. The Department of Justice and CIRNAC do not follow the legislation with regard to releasing the records. The legislation is there. It’s just not being used or enforced.
Senator Tannas: Thanks for being here today.
Just so I’m clear, both of you do research by contract for institutions, companies, et cetera, across all kinds of things. Is that right?
Mr. Shackleton: Yes.
Mr. Sadowski: No, I do not have a contract. I have worked with the Children of Shingwauk Alumni Association for the last 30-odd years. I don’t have a contract with them. I consider them and they consider me to be part of their family. I’ve done this work for nothing.
Senator Tannas: Do you have an added layer of trouble, then, when people within the departments say, “Well, who are you really representing? Do you have any authority?” Are you any better than if I called up and started asking questions?
Mr. Sadowski: No.
Senator Tannas: Okay. But you, Mr. Shackleton, on the other hand, have some kind of an agent relationship you can rely on. Is that fair? How does it work?
Mr. Shackleton: Well, I think we have knowledge because we have so many individuals doing this work, and I’ve been doing it for 20 years now. As any skill grows, we know where to look for files, we know what to ask for and we know how to organize the data, which is a massive thing.
Senator Tannas: The authority that you get with that person on the other side of the desk, the askee, who is saying, “Okay, by what authority do you ask for this,” does that matter in any case?
Mr. Shackleton: It definitely does, senator. There is something that’s built into legislation that requires you to get a band council resolution that would appoint you as the researcher for the band, and that gives you the authority to go and ask for that material.
Senator Tannas: So when you are being frustrated, you are being frustrated when you are that representative for that Indigenous government at this stage.
Mr. Shackleton: Yes.
Senator Tannas: I must have been under the misunderstanding that there is some commitment by the government to deliver all records to the truth and reconciliation centre. Is that false?
Mr. Shackleton: No, and that’s what I’ve referred to, senator, with the 25 million documents that a working group run by CIRNAC, I think, is currently going through, but there are representatives from various departments on it. It is also led by a working group committee with First Nations representation, and I’m unaware of how that committee is determining relevancy on what a residential school record is. Our clients, the First Nations that we’re working with, want to know what happened at medical institutions. They want to know what happened at reformatories. We don’t know if those records are going to be included. We also don’t know who is going through the records at the government to determine what is relevant. I don’t believe it’s First Nations. None of the clients I have known have been asked to sit on the panel to say what is relevant or review those files.
Senator Tannas: So there is no future world that we’re working towards where a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister can certify that every single record has been turned over to somebody. Is it a pipe dream to think that we will ever get to that point?
Mr. Shackleton: I believe it is.
Mr. Sadowski: We have made repeated requests to CIRNAC and Indigenous Services Canada over the last few years to provide us an inventory of all the historical documents they have, and they’ve declined. Unless they provide an inventory of what they have, we will never know what they still control in their archives.
Mr. Shackleton: There are archival records that we talk about, but CIRNAC and DOJ have “semi-active files.” These are files that could be continually used by the department, and they are extremely difficult to access. There are often no finding aids provided, so you have to submit an ATIP request that might be quite broad, and then it goes to relevancy. Someone else is deciding what is relevant within these collections for you to see.
The Chair: You have both worked directly with survivors, families and communities searching for truth, justice and healing. Could you speak about the real impact of the government and churches still denying and delaying access to records? How does it impact individuals, families and communities who do not have access, and what does it say to the communities about reconciliation?
Mr. Sadowski: Many survivors have died waiting for information. Within the Shingwauk Wawanosh alumni, there are very few survivors left, and there is only one survivor left that attended the Chapleau residential school. They have been trying to find information about what happened at those schools to their families and communities that sent students there. We have over 80 First Nations that went to the Shingwauk school. All survivors from those 80 communities want to know what happened to their kids. The impact is that there is no closure. The healing has not happened. That’s where we are today.
Mr. Shackleton: This lack of transparency is what Canada has been doing for 160 years now or longer, and it leads to the distrust of government. You can say all the records have been handed over, but I don’t think that the people we work with are going to believe you because you won’t let us see where the records are. You won’t let us see the full file, and there’s always the thought that maybe there was something else there.
The Chair: Thank you. The floor is still open if other senators have questions.
Senator Sorensen: This has been alluded to, but it occurred to me at another meeting we had before we broke for the summer regarding the complexities you’ve spoken to that this isn’t just the records at the residential schools. I had never thought about that piece of it. I’m intrigued by all the other organizations that have information. It gets so overwhelmingly muddy. I’m trying to remember a conversation about a corporation that has built a building where there had been a residential school, and we don’t know if there are children buried there. Could we have a few more comments on the complexity of all of that?
Mr. Sadowski: Senator, with regard to children who contracted tuberculosis at residential schools and were sent to a sanatorium that had room available or a federal Indian hospital, those students remained on the quarterly returns of the residential school. They were actually residential school students at these medical institutions, so they remained in the system. The money followed the child, so they remained on the quarterly returns; however, the grant money was transferred for the maintenance of the children at the medical institutions. They were still residential school kids wherever they went because they remained on the quarterly returns. That’s how the government kept track of these students. It’s not that complex.
The government does not want to release these records because they know that they’re going to get into the tuberculosis issue, and they don’t want to go there. This is the problem that we encountered when we tried to have the Fort William Indian Hospital Sanatorium recognized as a residential school under the settlement agreement. We went to court and, because of missing documents, the court denied our request to have the institution added, just like all Indian hospital schools across Canada.
Every Indian hospital, every sanatorium in Canada, had an Indian hospital school functioning out of that institution for the education of the students. So even while the students were there suffering from tuberculosis, they were still getting an education that was funded by the Government of Canada. It’s not that complicated. It’s just that the government makes it complicated.
Senator Sorensen: I’m not sure if that makes me feel better or worse, but thank you.
Mr. Sadowski: That’s the facts, and this is where the truth is.
Mr. Shackleton: I believe following a child’s history through being stolen — there will be records within (RG) 10 of band payments — to going a school, often being transferred to multiple schools, if there is an injury and they’re sent to a hospital, and if they are later sent to a reformatory. If they ran away, there are police records that are involved. If they were part of the Air Cadets, there will be different records involved there. On top of that, you have these institutional histories that have to be built to understand that the milk that was being served to them was from tuberculosis cows. You have to understand when that became illegal and that the school was doing that seven years after it became illegal in Canada. That all ties into that individual child’s story, and I think that’s what we’re missing here. This isn’t just a list of missing children; it is the history of children.
Senator Arnot: Witnesses, I’d like to go back to the issue under existing privacy legislation that prevents access to the records and ask if the policy behind that legislation is still serving a valid purpose. What I’ve heard here today is that, in fact, the existing privacy legislation allows records to be released for the greater good. We’re also hearing that the minister, or whoever is in authority, has not exercised the discretion the minister has in a way that is favourable to getting at the truth.
It seems to me that the people named in the records won’t be harmed, but the people with us here today who do not have the information are the ones who are being hurt by that legislation. Who are we hurting in not providing the information, and who is being protected by not providing the information?
Mr. Shackleton: I’m not sure who is being protected unless there is an individual who doesn’t want their records released. This is a very valid opinion that comes from some survivors. Things may have happened to them in residential schools that they don’t want everyone knowing about. That’s why I think it’s crucial that communities decide on how they’re going to present the records once they have been collected. These communities already have health records. They have records on social services, et cetera. It’s not as if they’re incapable of protecting records. They just can’t access the records, and that’s the problem. I have been told by a survivor that she did not want her records released, she didn’t want everyone to know what had happened, but it’s up to the communities to decide how they’re going to deal with those situations within their communities.
Mr. Sadowski: I agree with what was just said, but I also have to state that I think the Government of Canada is worried about what’s in those records and what records that they still have. They control the records, and by keeping them secret, they are protecting themselves from the truth.
The Chair: I don’t see anyone else with their hand up, so the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make subsequent submissions, certainly feel free to do that and submit them to our clerk, Ms. Mugny, within one week.
We will hear next from federal departments that have been identified as withholding access to records which are key to documenting the lives and deaths of the Indigenous children who were forced to attend residential schools, day schools and other sites.
Specifically, we will hear from the following witnesses: Garima Dwivedi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Partnerships; Kristi Carin, Director General, Resolution and Partnerships; from Library and Archives Canada, Jasmine Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister, User Experience and Engagement Sector; and Emily Gusba, Director General, Government Record Branch, Collections Sector. Thank you all for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question and answer session with the senators. I invite Garima Dwivedi to give her opening remarks.
Garima Dwivedi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Partnerships, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi, hello.
[Translation]
Good morning. I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you today from the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
[English]
I am Garima Dwivedi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Partnerships, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC. My sector’s mandate includes the Indian residential schools document sharing initiative, the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement and Calls to Action 72 to 76, including the Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support fund.
I’d like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for inviting CIRNAC to participate in today’s session regarding your report Honouring the Children who Never Came Home: Truth, Education and Reconciliation.
Addressing the legacy of residential schools is at the heart of reconciliation and the renewal of the relationship between survivors, their families and communities and all Canadians. The locating of unmarked graves at former residential school sites in Canada is a tragic reminder of the abuse Indigenous children suffered in those institutions.
From survivors, communities and representative organizations, we’ve heard the clear need to share additional documents related to residential schools to ensure that the information on the schools’ history and the administration of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement are accessible. CIRNAC is committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure we continue to do all we can to share the related residential school-related documents in the government’s possession while respecting survivors’ wishes, legislation, court orders, settlement agreements and ongoing litigation processes.
Under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, or IRSSA, all parties were obligated to disclose documents related to residential schools. Based on guidance from The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Canada disclosed over 4 million documents. On conclusion of its mandate in 2015, the TRC transferred its document collection to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, NCTR.
In December 2021, a new approach to sharing of the documents related to residential schools was announced. This includes a process to undertake a much broader review of existing documents beyond those already shared to ensure transparency and full sharing of additional relevant documents.
Through an initial scoping review, the Government of Canada’s departments and agencies have identified as many as 23 million additional documents related to residential schools and the implementation of the IRSSA. These include some duplicates of records previously provided to the NCTR as well.
In addition to the internal review, a new structure has been put in place to govern document sharing. The Residential Schools Documents Advisory Committee, chaired by former chief of the Cowessess First Nation Cadmus Delorme, was formed to identify and propose recommendations for sharing relevant documents of historical interest.
Eight committee members were to be identified through consultations with the NCTR, the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. Currently, there are six members, with two more to join. The six are the following: Eugene Arcand, survivor, Muskeg Lake First Nation, Saskatchewan; Maata Evaluardjuk-Palmer, survivor, Mittimatalik, Pond Inlet, Nunavut; Shirley Horn, survivor, Missanabie Cree First Nation, Ontario; Brenda Macdougall, Chair of Métis Research, University of Ottawa; Dr. Gwen Point, Intergenerational survivor, Skowkale First Nation, British Columbia; and Ted Quewezance, survivor, Keeseekoose First Nation Saskatchewan.
The committee will also include members from 13 federal agencies and departments. The NCTR is represented, as well as the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites.
The committee will provide recommendations to the government on removing challenges to sharing documents. One of its top priorities is to ensure that stakeholder views, including those of survivors, communities and Indigenous organizations, are reflected in discussions and decisions.
In terms of the NCTR, CIRNAC has committed to provide $24.9 million over five years in funding to assist the NCTR in carrying out its important mandate of preserving the history of residential schools, honouring the truths of survivors and undertaking research to support continued healing and promoting education and understanding of the residential schools system. CIRNAC continues to work in close collaboration with the NCTR on all related activities. The NCTR has submitted a revised funding proposal to support ongoing work for consideration.
CIRNAC’s Residential Schools Missing Children Community Support Fund provides funding to Indigenous communities and families as they seek to research, locate and document burial sites associated with former residential schools. As of September 11, 2023, the department has received 149 applications requesting $380.5 million in funding over four years. So far, 117 applications have been approved for funding, totalling $160.4 million. The program is currently assessing another $70.6 million in requested funding. We have heard calls from both the communities and the Special Interlocutor to extend the program to 2033. We continue to assess community uptake and requirements.
With respect to calls to expand the program to include non-IRSSA sites, CIRNAC assesses requests on a case-by-case basis to follow the child from a recognized residential school to another federally operated facility. CIRNAC’s approach to non‑IRSSA federally operated institutions will continue to be developed in collaboration with various survivor groups. Ensuring that their unique experiences are heard and considered will be paramount in the development of the approaches.
Canada recognizes the importance of preserving and sharing documentation to honour and remember the children who attended residential schools. To that end, we will continue to work in close collaboration with the Documents Advisory Committee and the NCTR.
I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Thank you. Merci.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Dwivedi. I now invite Ms. Bouchard to give her opening remarks
[Translation]
Jasmine Bouchard, Assistant Deputy Minister, User Experience and Engagement Sector, Library and Archives Canada: Members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak today. I am Jasmine Bouchard. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister at Library and Archives Canada, or LAC, and I am responsible for user experience and engagement. My team coordinates stakeholder relationships, including with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. With me is Emily Gusba, Director General of the Government Record Branch.
In its recent report, Honouring the Children Who Never Came Home, the committee requested that Library and Archives Canada expedite the transfer of records related to residential schools to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. The committee also asked Library and Archives Canada to provide the committee with a progress report by December 2023. I am here today to talk to you about how Library and Archives Canada is mobilizing to address that recommendation.
Between 2008 and 2015, Library and Archives Canada has disclosed over two million pages related to the history of residential schools to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and they became part of the collections of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
In 2015, Library and Archives Canada put a letter of intent into the bentwood box at the closing event for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, stating that we would continue to support the work of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation once our legal obligations were addressed.
Since then, LAC has integrated the identification of new records and their transfer to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation into our operations. Most recently, we identified and transferred 40,000 pages to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation from the school files series. Following the report from the committee, Library and Archives Canada promptly identified 32 government audiovisual items for transfer to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. These documents will be processed and transferred this fall.
Library and Archives Canada is also in the process of identifying and digitizing up to six million pages of government records relating to day schools. These documents were not part of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. LAC is still early in this initiative, specifically at the file identification stage. This project is expected to take about two more years to complete.
We are in active discussions with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation for the progressive transfer of as many records as possible. We recognize how vitally important these records are to Indigenous survivors, families and communities. And we understand the disappointment in needing to wait for documents to become available. However, the process takes time. These records are spread over several locations across the country. In addition, Library and Archives Canada needs to balance both its obligation to provide access and our legal obligation to protect private information.
In short, Library and Archives Canada continues to make steady progress and is well positioned to complete the progress report by December 2023.
I would also like to emphasize the profound impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Library and Archives Canada. As the keeper of historical government records, we played an important role in providing documentation to the commission and subsequently to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
This engagement helped to transform Library and Archives Canada, motivating us to rethink how we support groups and individuals wanting to share their own stories. We have evolved from merely functioning as “the memory of the government” to being a partner that actively supports communities across the country, sharing a range of experiences, perspectives and narratives.
As the guardians of numerous stories, Library and Archives Canada recognizes that without truth, there can be no reconciliation, and we will continue our ongoing efforts to provide the widest possible access to the records of residential schools.
We are pleased to support the Senate in its ongoing work on this matter and will gladly answer any questions.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bouchard.
We will open the floor to questions from senators, and I will start with the first question to both of you.
Further to prior testimony heard by the committee, could you identify the exact provisions of the Privacy Act and access to information regimes preventing departments from releasing access to records? Could you also please provide us with a detailed list of all records the federal government is currently withholding related to residential schools, day schools, hospitals, sanitoriums and related sites? Lastly, could you please describe the exact process that the federal government requires of survivors and their families and communities to access these records? What are the specific requirements and costs, what is the number of requests received and completed in the last decade, and what are your processing times?
If you are unable to respond to these specific questions now, if we could have a commitment that you will provide us a response in writing before the end of the month, that would be greatly appreciated.
Ms. Dwivedi: Mr. Chair, I’m wondering if you could repeat that list. There are some that perhaps I could respond to today and others from a CIRNAC perspective that we could get back to you on.
The Chair: Could you identify the exact provisions of the Privacy Act and access to information regimes preventing departments from releasing access to record? Could you provide us with a detailed list of all records the federal government is currently withholding related to residential schools, day schools, hospitals, sanitoriums and related sites? Lastly, could you please provide the exact process that the federal government requires of survivors and their families and communities to access these records? Specifically, what are the requirements and costs, what is the number of requests received and completed in the last decade, and what are the processing times?
Ms. Dwivedi: Mr. Chair, I will start with the item that you’ve raised, the question with regard to details of all records, including day schools and other institutions as well.
I will say that for the Documents Advisory Committee, in terms of residential schools, one of its key mandate areas is to look at the potential and provide guidance to government departments in terms of what constitutes related documents. So that is the work of the advisory committee. I did check with the chair, Cadmus Delorme, and he did say that if the committee is interested, he would be willing to appear to talk about the committee’s work. The committee met once in June; their second meeting will be in October.
For other institutions, for example, the residential schools that were part of the Anderson Settlement in Newfoundland and Labrador, the survivors for those institutions chose to have their documents located closer to the communities, so in Labrador, so they are housed there. For other survivor groups, for example, the Sixties Scoop Settlement agreement, part of the provisions of that agreement, as per the wishes of the survivors, was that their documents are included in the Sixties Scoop Foundation. We honour and respect the wishes of each survivor group.
In terms of the specifics about the exact provisions, process and number over the last decade, I can provide that to you in writing at a later date.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: Thank you for the question. As my colleague said earlier, we will get back to you with details on the legislative provisions of the act and the large number of documents to be transferred or opened.
Before I send you more details, I would like to say a few words about the access process. Library and Archives Canada offers different mechanisms for accessing the historical records in its holdings. The first is a specific reference service for Indigenous communities that was put in place in recent months. We have experts from different communities to help people navigate through the vast amount of material in our care.
We also have resource people who are familiar with the experience of people who approach us and who can guide them well through the various services and intricacies of our processes. We’ll be happy to send you more details on the number of requests received over the years and on how to access these services.
I would also like to add a brief comment on the process for access to information requests. With regard to requests for unopened documents, which often contain confidential information, Library and Archives Canada has received substantial sums of money over the past few years to deal with the vast backlog. A great effort has been made in this regard, and we are still making up for all the lost time. We will be able to give you an idea of the extent of this effort at a later date, with the help of data.
[English]
Senator Arnot: This question is directed to CIRNAC and Ms. Dwivedi principally. I understand that you have established an Indian Residential School Documents Advisory Committee with Cadmus Delorme, Ted Quewezance and Eugene Arcand. I know those individuals. I’m sure they are going to do a great job. When was that started? You say it has had one meeting, yet there are two more individuals to be added.
I ask that in terms of this question: The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation sent a letter to us in April 2023 referring to a letter that they had sent to you in March of 2022. The NCTR is asking this committee to support and expedite Canada formalizing a partnership with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to generate aggregated, de-identified statistical information. In other words, very generic, not disaggregated and not identified individuals. What is the status of a proposed partnership between the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and Government of Canada to provide that kind of very generic information? Is it still outstanding?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much for your question, senator.
Mr. Chair, the Indian Residential School Documents Advisory Committee had its inaugural meeting at the end of June 2023. Its second meeting will be in October. They are in the process of developing the scope for their work and identifying guidance for departments so that we have a consistent approach to doing this and so that we don’t have to do this again later. We did it with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — we transferred over 4 million documents — but there were other related documents. For example, what happened to the buildings once they were no longer in use? There are all sorts of details and documents.
We are looking to that Documents Advisory Committee to provide us, departments and agencies, with guidance so that we have a standard approach for looking at all relevant documents, and also guidance in terms of the next steps. How do we go through those documents and identify what’s duplicate? How do we transfer that to the NCTR? That’s a huge process in itself. This will take time. We have done, as I mentioned, the initial scoping exercise, but that’s just the initial. Depending on the guidance, we might have a different scoping exercise or add elements to it based on the guidance that that Documents Advisory Committee — those individuals, the survivors and experts — provides to us. We’re really looking to them for that so that we’re not driving this. It is them who are driving this.
Senator Arnot: Do you know if the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation is satisfied with that? Are they a partner in the establishment of this committee?
Ms. Dwivedi: They are, and they are part of the committee as well, as is a representative. The special interlocutor was invited, and there is a representative from her office who is also on that committee.
Senator Arnot: It sounds to me like this might take considerable time, some number of years, for this committee to do its work. Is that accurate?
Ms. Dwivedi: I think you would have to ask the chair that question. I don’t want to speak on behalf of them. We have identified 23 million documents across government departments and agencies. Within CIRNAC itself, my department, we have identified 13 million documents. I expect it would take a bit of time to go through those. I don’t know how long. I’m not an IT expert with today’s technology, so I can’t speak to that.
Senator Tannas: Just following up on that, the documents that you have identified, are they all digitized?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much for that question.
They are not all digitized documents, and that work is also required. Different departments hold different types of documents.
Senator Tannas: So for the entire subject matter — somebody said 14 departments — you put a lot of work into what could possibly fit. We’re talking about roughly 25 million documents that are in question. At least we have something to say, okay, we’re talking about 25 million documents; they have to go somewhere. Then researchers, like our friends in the last panel, would know that they can access what they need through the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation on behalf of their clients or the folks they’re volunteering for. That’s good.
In terms of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, when was that done? I think it was 2013?
Ms. Dwivedi: The settlement agreement was signed in 2005.
Senator Tannas: So 18 years ago. Can you confirm that you have complied with undertakings to deliver the documents that were committed to under that particular agreement?
Ms. Dwivedi: Under that agreement, as provided by guidance through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we have transferred over 4 million documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which then transferred them to the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. Subsequent to that, we also went back, because some of those documents and the technology at the time weren’t as good, so there have been higher resolution images of some of those documents provided to the NCTR over the last couple of years as well.
Senator Tannas: Enhancement of existing documents. But you can confirm that, under the terms of that agreement, 18 years later, we are done with that? Now we’re talking about a wider scope because we now realize there are hospitals and all kinds of connected institutions and activities that weren’t part of that. Is that right?
Ms. Dwivedi: You’re correct.
Senator Tannas: And that’s where the document-sharing initiative of 2021 comes in. Is that right?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you for that question.
We recognize that what was shared in 2015 met the requirements under the IRSSA agreement. At the same time, there are other documents related to residential schools that would be really helpful for communities. I will give an example. Perhaps there is a picture of children that a department has that might help a community identify a child in a particular institution. There may be documents that are helpful for further research. So it is identifying all of these other related documents that could be helpful to communities or individuals who are searching. I don’t want to say that we’ve defined what those documents will be because we’re looking to the advisory committee to give us the scope of that work and to define what types of documents to look for. We don’t want this to be government driven.
Senator Tannas: I’m just curious. In 2021, an initiative comes that contemplates this committee. We’re into the third year since that decision has been made, and they met once. How long did they meet for? How many hours?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much for that question.
At its inaugural meeting, the committee met for two days. It was a two-day, in-person meeting. There is a scheduled meeting in October. I believe it’s for two days, but I will ask my colleague Kristi Carin to confirm.
Kristi Carin, Director General, Resolution and Partnerships, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you.
Yes, senator, the first meeting was held in June of this year, and the second meeting will be in October for two days again.
Senator Tannas: Do you anticipate some kind of a rhythm where this gets faster? People only live a certain amount of time; there are lots of people looking for answers. We have a committee that was dreamed up almost three years ago that has met once and will meet again in October. By 2024, it will have met twice. Is this success in your minds? Is this where you thought you would be in 2021 when this initiative was delivered to you to execute?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much for that question.
I do not want to speak for the chair of the committee in terms of the frequency of meetings or the scope and the demands of committee members because it’s not just at committee. It’s in between meetings as well. We are very respectful and appreciative of the guidance that has been provided and I’m sure will continue to be provided to government departments and agencies.
Senator Tannas: Has it gone a little slower than you thought, or did you think this is how long it would take to get to where you are right now?
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you for that question.
I am very respectful of the committee members, what they’ve contributed and their approach in terms of how frequently they would like to meet.
The Chair: Ms. Dwivedi, the Children of the Shingwauk Alumni Association requested access to the Indian Register, which may contain information to assist in the identification of two boys and two girls who died while attending the Shingwauk Indian Residential School in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, in the early 1900s. Would you please provide in writing, if possible, the information management policies governing the Indian Register? What type of research did officials at Indigenous Services Canada do in order to determine that there was no useful information?
Ms. Dwivedi: Mr. Chair, I can provide in writing our information management policies for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.
The Chair: How does CIRNAC establish priorities for records access? Does the government prioritize records to be released due to litigation, as the previous witness suggested?
Ms. Dwivedi: That’s a complex question, and I think it’s not a simple answer that it’s one and two because we do get many access requests. We respond to them as quickly as possible. Some of them require much more research, so they take more time internally. It’s not an easy question to answer, because it depends on the questions. It depends on the complexities of what’s being requested.
The Chair: One last question: On average, what is the typical amount of time individuals have to wait to gain access to records under an ATIP request?
Ms. Dwivedi: Mr. Chair, I can get back to you in terms of the specifics of the department and provide you with that in writing.
The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses for your work and for being here with us today. It’s good to see you on our first day back here in the Senate of Canada for our fall session. I apologize for being a little tardy arriving. We had a hurricane in Nova Scotia.
I’m just trying to understand the drivers. Of course, you’ve got internal drivers in each of your areas, in the Library and Archives Canada and in CIRNAC. We have a lot of external push that’s been unsatisfied for a very long time, and that’s why we’re here having this conversation. We now have this committee that’s, thankfully, up and running, and that’s a really positive thing. Political will is usually what makes things move forward and makes things accelerate.
I have a couple of questions. One is that we have a new minister of CIRNAC since this committee was established. I know it’s early in the mandate of the new minister, but I’m wondering if there is already engagement at the political level on this file and what that looks like. I am assuming CIRNAC, even though it is very clear that there are records all over the place and not just at CIRNAC, would be the lead with the keenest interest and the lion’s share of the records.
In both of your areas, in your opinions and in your experience, what do you think can be done to accelerate this process? You know the inside much better than us. We’re sitting here, and we have heard from people who have frustrations, so there’s a problem to be solved. There is a committee that’s going to help, but you people are very experienced, and you know what makes things move. It would be interesting, for me, anyway, to hear what you think could really help move this forward in a more efficient way.
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much. I appreciate that you made it here safely. That’s good, and I hope you weren’t too impacted by the storm.
In terms of the new minister, the minister is engaged. I can’t speak to the political aspect, but the minister is definitely engaged.
In terms of what can be done to accelerate the process, internally, we’ve talked about this as well. While being respectful that we’re not driving this, it’s important that we don’t overlook elements or documents that might be important to survivors or communities, so it’s marrying those two elements. The guidance from the advisory committee is critical so that there aren’t gaps.
At the same time, again, I’m not a technology expert, but I think we’re moving in leaps and bounds to have a better appreciation for how technology can be used to expedite that process, I think that’s part of the work that we’re doing and will need to continue to do, because I think that will make a difference, compared to even 10 years ago. Things have changed a lot, and it’s my hope that we can do this more quickly than we did in the past, efficiently, and make it more accessible and transparent.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: Thank you for the question. You talked about what motivated us at Library and Archives Canada.
I would like to mention that we published a new strategic plan a few years ago. Library and Archives Canada is intended to be a user-centric organization, responsive to the expectations and needs of Canadians. One of the issues we’re facing in this drive to improve access to information and transparency in government is that a lot of processes have been designed for individual requests. As individuals, people want a document.
Today, the situations we find ourselves in mean that we need to facilitate access to substantial quantities of documents. The processes designed 10 or 20 years ago no longer adequately meet our needs and do not increase efficiencies in this area.
Library and Archives Canada is committed to a process of facilitating access to records. We know that some access to information and privacy requests are quite complex and time‑consuming. So what we would like is to do is to provide access as far in advance as possible, so that people are aware that they have to go to this kind of mechanism. We know that this is often what slows down the process and causes delays for people.
We’re looking at all kinds of mechanisms related to the discussion we’re having today. We want to see how we can open more documents. We want to talk to people and determine what their needs are, so that we can provide them with the right information. Given the mass of material we have, we cannot overwhelm them with useless information either.
The main issue for Library and Archives Canada in this effort to speed up the process is the issue of volume. However, we are happy to be working on solutions with all the partners at the table.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Thank you both very much for your responses. It’s important for us to understand what you face also, because that helps us then ask better questions.
You have mentioned, Ms. Dwivedi, technology. You mentioned it a couple of times. We’ve talked about these absolutely massive amounts of information. I know librarians and archivists are brilliant managers of information and want to satisfy the public needs. Very often, libraries and archivists are at the forefront of new technologies that help us. In this day and age, I don’t know enough to even imagine whether artificial intelligence may play a positive role in this, but other technological solutions must be coming forward that would really help cut through so much of the work that has been onerous in the past. Ms. Dwivedi, you mentioned you’re not a technology expert, but I’m curious whether these technological solutions to acceleration of satisfaction of this goal are central in the efforts that both of your departments are undertaking at this time.
Ms. Dwivedi: To respond to that question, Mr. Chair, one of the examples I gave was about transferring to the NCTR documents in higher resolution than was possible in the past. That’s an example of what’s being done. We are looking at solutions as this project moves forward, and again, we will be looking to experts as well to help guide us forward in this path.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: We definitely want to optimize our digital solutions. We are looking at different technologies to ensure faster transfer and access, as well as transcription to speed up document reading. We are also looking at artificial intelligence. Like everyone else, we are keeping an eye on developments.
In the case of historical archives, one of the challenges for Library and Archives Canada is that we have archives of hundreds of departments. The forms and reports are different from one department to another. Some documents were handwritten. Today’s technologies offer solutions to today’s problems. Sometimes, there are fewer solutions to problems that were created in the past.
For example, if we want to train AI to recognize that a student’s name is always in a certain place on a form, if the name has moved frequently over the years, it’s harder to use these technologies.
I’m excited about the possibilities.
That said, for historical documents, it is sometimes more difficult to do this. We are definitely looking at possibilities in terms of transcription for faster reading, and what standardization will enable us to do with AI.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: First of all, thank you for all the work that you’ve done and are continuing to do. I do appreciate that.
I have some comments. Part of the reason I’m going to say them is because I want to make sure I understand clearly, and then I have maybe a couple of suggestions. There may be a question in here, so forgive me if I sound like I’m rambling.
We have heard from other witnesses some discussion around the legislation and privacy and those sorts of things, and we heard about people wanting to share but being really bound by policy and so unable to do so. I certainly have heard that. It must be really conflicting for people to be in those kinds of situations where you want to share but you can’t. I would acknowledge that. Within that, too, and one of you already said it in this panel, is the whole notion of individual versus collective, so you’re getting a lot more. There is a tension there of individual versus collective.
I should tell you that my father was a residential school student, and so this is deeply personal to me but also very professional as well.
As you grapple with how we make the changes for access, I think about when the children were taken. They weren’t taken as individuals. They were taken as families, and they were taken as communities. It was an overarching policy, so we’re applying today’s context to a context that was very different, as I understand it.
I am also very cognizant that we’re in a time of reconciliation on multiple fronts, not just this but multiple commitments where we as a country have to face this, and that’s why it’s so complex. It is in all systems. We have to think about that, because when we begin to paint this picture, it isn’t just one child that was taken to residential school. It is the whole context in which this happened, and so it makes it big and complex, so I think about that.
Then I think about the OCAP principles: ownership, control, access and possession. Are these being applied? Does this figure into this privacy legislation? How does that work together? These principles were born of the communities, of the nations, so how are we taking those into consideration? These records belong to the nations, to those families and to those children. Yes, there are individuals who may not want their records shared, and I understand that, but I think we have a greater question here. I offer you that thinking. How can we use those principles and other like principles from nations to protect their own information? That information is theirs.
Then I think about human rights and some of the advocacy that’s been done or will be done around this to help to move this process along so that there is greater access, and I’ll get to a couple of points in a moment. These are also human rights issues in a big way, not just as individuals but collectively, in my mind, in my humble opinion.
I have certainly heard some strategies that you have already identified with technology. That can be very helpful, but there’s a challenge around process and there’s a challenge around access. So with the processes themselves, the legislation, whatever, how can we improve that? What do we need to move that along? Perhaps it’s political will, and perhaps there is advocacy. I don’t know. I’m just thinking about this. With those processes, how do we allow that access? Why couldn’t we have open access agreements? We can’t move the library and archives in its entirety, but how do we then create agreements that are much more open than they are now?
The question and tension I’ve heard too is around who determines what’s relevant. I don’t know how to say this. I’ll say it this way: In my humble opinion, that belongs to the nations. Their children, their families, their communities. It belongs to them. They should determine what is relevant. You have a committee, and I’m sure there will be lots of conversations about this.
I’ve heard you talk about some of the strategies that you’re already working on to move things along. It would be really important for me to understand — and maybe you can comment, and you have a bit already — where we are today and where I can expect you to be two or three years from now if you had to come back here and say, “We started here and now we’re here. We’ve got this agreement. We have this open and this has changed.” That’s what I would like to know.
I think it’s important that we keep our mind on the history of what happened here as we face contemporary tensions and look for innovative strategies that are going to honour that history as well as the obligations and responsibilities that we have today. Thank you for your work. It’s very complex.
The Chair: As a follow-up to Senator Greenwood’s important comments, I would like to ask the witnesses to provide in writing a detailed explanation of how your departments are applying the principles of First Nations’ ownership, control, access and possession of records.
Ms. Dwivedi: Mr. Chair, we can provide that in writing, as requested.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Tannas: As we’ve been having this conversation — it’s been wonderful to listen to my colleagues, who are far more eloquent than I on this — I keep coming back to this issue of the committee, one meeting, three years. I went back and read the press release about the committee and so on, and they’re going to provide recommendations to you on what should be in and what should be out. What if you don’t listen to them? Or what if it takes you years to think about their recommendations? All of those things are not implausible. They happen all the time in government on situations that everybody doesn’t want to deal with.
I’m glad you’ve identified 23 million records. What if we transferred them in their current form and then let the committee in possession decide what’s relevant and what’s not? It seems that everybody has to go to the counter and ask for something specific and then maybe get it or maybe not. What if we just gave them the whole store? We could say, “Sort it out, return what isn’t relevant and hang on to what is.” Then we wouldn’t have this kind of hide-and-seek game going on. We wouldn’t be in — let’s face it — a fragile trust situation that anything is ever going to progress. Could you tell me why that idea is bad and yours is better, with you controlling the data, showing us the number 23 million, 4 million have been handed over, a committee that’s had one meeting in two years and is eventually going to deliver an answer, and maybe you’ll follow it and maybe we’ll get somewhere after we’re all dead?
I’m speaking out of my own frustration, and my own frustration is small compared to the folks who this really matters to. Should we just carry on happily here? We’re holding this series of meetings out of a frustration that was articulated by the head of NCTR. This has one of those feelings where we’re going from A to B to C to D, the circle, instead of A to D, which is what we ought to be doing. Could you comment on why we ought to keep it the way it is versus giving it to the owners and letting them sort it out and set the rules? Would you dare comment on something like that? If not, that’s okay. I know it may not be in your brief.
Ms. Dwivedi: Thank you very much. There is a lot there.
When we say we’ve scoped out approximately 23 million documents, it’s not that we’ve collected them and we know exactly where they are. Each department did a review, and this is what they think. That said, we still need to go through our repositories to identify those documents.
Further, we need the guidance from the committee to make sure we haven’t left out anything. In our search to try to identify the number of documents, can we provide some assurance that if the committee was looking for something else related, that we haven’t overlooked it? That’s work that still needs to be done.
I appreciate your frustration and the frustration of communities trying to look for these documents. It’s why we’ve put this in place. We do want to make the documents accessible, and we want to be transparent. That’s why the committee is in place, so that it is transparent and so that nothing is being hidden from Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Bouchard: Thank you for your question. I can add a word, not really about the work of the committee that Library and Archives Canada is part of, but about the fact that we are certainly a facilitator for some of these files.
Regarding the handling of residential school records within Library and Archives Canada, different approaches can be considered for processing these files. We will put in place a mechanism to expedite the transfer of documents; rather than waiting until the end of the project, we will identify as soon as possible the sets of documents that could be shared quickly with the centre.
We recommend a gradual, iterative approach, tackling the simpler documents first. For those that are more complex because of privacy issues, we’ll get to them in due course.
I understand that you’re not entirely happy with that, because a transfer isn’t going to happen overnight; we’re trying to do it gradually to shorten timelines.
Logistically, repatriating 23 million documents is extremely complex, which is one of the reasons why it isn’t going to happen overnight. However, we are happy to look at all kinds of solutions or opportunities to speed up access.
[English]
Senator Arnot: I want to come back to the committee issue. Has the creation of the committee already caused delay for existing inquiries about information? How will this committee’s work affect the response times for information from individuals, researchers and communities who are not a party to that oversight group?
Ms. Dwivedi: The creation of the committee has not caused any delays in terms of response times. The committee is not overseeing the responses; the committee is providing guidance in terms of identifying documents that can then be shared with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.
Senator, I have forgotten your second question.
Senator Arnot: How will the existence of the committee affect response times for information from individuals, communities and researchers who are not party to the oversight group?
Ms. Dwivedi: For individuals or researchers who are not party to that, it shouldn’t change the response time. The committee is providing guidance to departments, but it’s not directing individual responses to individual requests, so there should be no impact on that. Eventually, as the project progresses, we hope that it will make access more efficient and more transparent for everyone. One of the goals is to increase accessibility and transparency in the process.
Senator Arnot: Thanks.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to again thank all our witnesses for joining today. I remind them to please answer any outstanding questions via a written submission to the clerk before the end of the month.
(The committee adjourned.)