THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 26, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis, from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. That would be in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Hartling: I’m Nancy Hartling, senator from New Brunswick, and I live in the Mi’kmaq unceded territory.
Senator Busson: My name is Bev Busson. I’m a senator from British Columbia, and I live in Shuswap territory.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, and I’m from Manitoba.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken]. Michèle Audette, Quebec, [Innu-aimun spoken].
The Chair: Thank you, everyone. Today, we will continue the committee 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 colleagues to please keep their exchanges brief. Due to time limitations, each senator will have up to five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer from the witness. We will give priority to committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we will begin a second round.
Now I’d like to introduce the first panel of witnesses. As an individual, Dr. Marcia Anderson, Vice-Dean, Indigenous Health, Social Justice and Anti-Racism. From the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, Matthew Foss, Vice President, Research & Public Policy, and from the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, Michelle LeClair, Vice President.
Thank you all for joining us today.
Each witness will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer. I will hold up this sign just to let you know when there’s one minute left in your allotted time. Hopefully, everyone will be mindful. The worst part of my job is cutting people off. I try not to do that.
I will now invite Dr. Anderson to give her opening remarks.
Dr. Marcia Anderson, Vice-Dean, Indigenous Health, Social Justice and Anti-Racism: [Indigenous language spoken].
My name is Dr. Marcia Anderson. I’m Cree and Anishinaabe. My kids are Cree, Anishinaabe and Dakota. My dad is a member of Peguis First Nation through his mother’s line, and my grandpa’s matriarchal line began in Norway House Cree nation. I’m a physician, and I’m the Vice-Dean, Indigenous Health, Social Justice and Anti-Racism in the Rady Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba.
Thank you for the honour of being invited to participate here as a witness. Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, reports, I led the collaborative development of reconciliation action plans for the Rady Faculty of Health Sciences and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. I also led the development of the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada’s Joint Commitment to Action on Indigenous Health, which describes medical schools’ responsibilities to respond to the health-related Calls to Action.
I’ve considered these roles and contributions part of a sacred responsibility to honour all who have been impacted by residential schools, especially the children who never made it home. As articulated in the Calls to Action, the national council for reconciliation has a critical role as an accountability mechanism for sustainable and meaningful progress on reconciliation. There are some considerations I would offer that I believe would strengthen its ability to maximize the potential of this role, and while I will focus on health, I would suggest that parallels could be drawn to other key areas, including education, child welfare and justice.
I appreciate the need for a distinctions-based, geographic and diverse gender representation. I would suggest that different areas of professional expertise would be a beneficial and necessary additional layer to consider, including, for example, thought and practice leadership in Indigenous health.
Allow me to expand on why I believe this is necessary with a few key examples.
On September 28, 2020, 12 years and one week after the racism-induced death of Brian Sinclair in Winnipeg, Joyce Echaquan died in a Quebec hospital after livestreaming the horrific treatment she was experiencing. The Quebec coroner acknowledged the role of racism in her death, stating that if Ms. Echaquan were White, she would be alive. Subsequent actions to address systemic anti-Indigenous racism have been taken from a federal level, but this needs to be understood by all as a core component of reconciliation and health. It will require the utilization of policy, legislative and accountability mechanisms, including the national council for reconciliation.
In particular, it is critical that the data collected from provinces and territories by the federal government for use by the council include data that allows for the assessment of progress in addressing systemic anti-Indigenous racism in all health care settings, most of which are under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.
We are all feeling the impacts of the health workforce crisis, but the impacts of it will not affect everyone equally. Where the global nursing crisis inhibits the delivery of nurse-led primary and public health care, particularly in remote Indigenous communities, the differences have the potential to be stark. They are already being felt as demonstrated by some Manitoba First Nations declaring states of emergencies or calling for immediate federal action on health care staffing levels. Specific attention must be paid to how the health workforce crisis and its response will serve to either hinder or advance progress on reconciliation.
The data infrastructure to provide appropriately disaggregated health indicators that monitor progress on reconciliation does not exist in our country. While there is a Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy under way, measuring progress on health-related Calls to Action has not been framed as a core objective of that strategy. Attacks on the rights of two-spirit and trans youth are accelerating, with threats of access to gender-affirming health care. This, too, needs to be seen as a matter of reconciliation.
Without specific thought, leadership and expertise in health, I’m concerned that there will be a limited ability to respond to new or newly recognized threats to the health and health rights of Indigenous peoples, or that opportunities that could be leveraged to accelerate closing the gaps in Indigenous health might be missed and that this would undermine progress on reconciliation.
I believe it’s critical that reconciliation be treated as a whole-of-government approach and be the lens that all government action is seen through. Reconciliation must be primarily structural and relational, and the national council for reconciliation must be empowered to ensure this rights-based approach is undertaken at all levels and across all sectors of society.
Meegwetch and [Indigenous language spoken].
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Anderson.
I now invite Matthew Foss to give his opening remarks.
Matthew Foss, Vice President, Research & Public Policy, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business: [Indigenous language spoken]
My name is Matthew Foss. I’m a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta. As Vice President of Research and Public Policy for the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, or CCAB, I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and all distinguished members of this committee, for the opportunity to provide some comments on this national council for reconciliation.
At CCAB, we build bridges between Indigenous and non‑Indigenous peoples, businesses and communities to advance a prosperous Indigenous economy while also building the Canadian economy as a whole. This is an example of reconciliation in action.
Reconciliation — so where do we begin? We begin by recognizing the past and present before we can move forward. Looking ahead, reconciliation means solidifying and establishing the institutions and frameworks that will set up Indigenous people for success, empowering Indigenous peoples to lead these initiatives while lending support and expertise when requested.
Reconciliation is a multi-generational undertaking, and we must put in place structures now that will ensure sustainability for those who will come after us. The proposed council is an important step toward reconciliation. Tracking and public reporting are critical elements of accountability. Public reporting on reconciliation actions demonstrates a commitment to acknowledging and making progress on reconciliation and highlights that this is the business of every Canadian.
I deeply appreciate those who acknowledge this as a necessary step.
To create reconciliation, there must be a much greater focus on economic actions and activities. A thriving Indigenous economy will provide the capital and own-source revenues required for Indigenous peoples to break the dependence on government funding and pursue self-determination and governance. There must be adequate resources for Indigenous people to achieve this and to alleviate damage caused by the many social issues that Indigenous people face.
In the spirit of true reconciliation, Indigenous peoples need to be the ones to set the agenda and to determine membership for this council. We must avoid the repetition of past mistakes in which Indigenous people were not trusted to make their own decisions. For this reason, it’s important that the Government of Canada provides funding to attain this vision in line with their fiduciary duties to our people and to be open to providing transparent reporting and accountability to this council. That’s where the Government of Canada’s involvement in the council should end.
True reconciliation is messy. True reconciliation is not easy. True reconciliation is not a continuation of the status quo wherein Indigenous people are trapped in a cycle of grant funding with accountability to the Government of Canada. True reconciliation means that the Government of Canada will not choose which Indigenous voices are to be heard. Indigenous people and organizations should be the ones to decide membership on this council, not the Government of Canada. Sections 9 to 14 of the proposed legislation should instead follow the recommendations from the interim board of the national council for reconciliation.
As proposed by the interim board in their final report, the national council for reconciliation must be financially independent, non-political and separate from government to ensure that the council is able to conduct its work of reporting on reconciliation efforts without interference. By virtue of this, the council should not solely report to the minister on progress toward reconciliation in all sectors of Canadian society, but also, directly to the public to ensure that these reports are transparent, not subject to government censure and promote public involvement.
With all of that being said, thank you for the opportunity to lend our voice to this incredibly important topic, and I look forward to the questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Foss. I will now invite Michelle LeClair to give her opening remarks.
Michelle LeClair, Vice President, Métis Nation Saskatchewan: Thank you. [Indigenous language spoken].
Good morning. I want to acknowledge, first of all, that we are on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe people.
Honoured members of this committee, I’m pleased to be here on behalf of the Métis Nation Saskatchewan, our lands and our citizens. I’m here today to speak about Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. The bill’s preamble states:
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the need for the establishment of an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization to monitor, evaluate, conduct research, report on the progress being made toward reconciliation . . . in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada . . . .
I think all of us here can support the spirit of the bill and what it aims to do to address our unique experience of colonization, prevent discrimination and promote substantive equality and healing. After all, how can we be sure that the work that we are doing is leading to the positive outcomes for our people? Without statistics and metrics, how do we know we’re making people’s lives better, more equitable and less painful? How can we ensure that the supports that we put in place are getting to those who need them most? How do we begin to unravel the thread of colonialism without oversight, gathering information, creating records and providing checks and balances?
Legislation such as this gives me hope because it means people are coming to the table to talk about how we can work together and make things better.
When I started my legal career or as a young Métis politician in my early 20s in La Ronge, Saskatchewan, in the mid-1990s, we weren’t waiting for people to come to the table because there wasn’t a table. So now I am cautiously optimistic.
Many of the legislators that I’ve spoken to are sincere in their commitment to reconciliation in order to create a strong working relationship between Canada and Indigenous governments. True reconciliation knows no party lines and loyalty. It holds no ideology or opinion. It’s a path we follow together to move our nations forward while helping everyone succeed and prosper. It also means respecting the governments of the Métis nation and recognizing that we are bestowed by our people with the power to be involved in and make decisions that affect them and our communities.
This is why, as stated in the Calls to Action report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Aboriginal people must be full partners in confederation.
This is why, though we are encouraged by the spirit of the bill, we cannot support it in its current shape. It’s imperative that a distinct Métis perspective is required, requested and represented on the proposed council, but not all Métis governments have been engaged in the section 29 consultation process, which means that there are far too many blind spots built in. Without proper consultation, without knowing each of our processes and systems or how they intersect, how can this bill accurately engage with us and lead to meaningful change?
I just want to quickly quote senator Mary Jane McCallum when she rose in the house on March 22. She said:
. . . the complexity of Bill C-29 involves the intentional lumping together of different peoples who have been impacted by colonialism in different ways: First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status. Some are at different levels of engagement and some are not engaged at all with the federal and provincial governments, and we all have unique, unresolved issues specific to our histories.
I’m going to make some recommendations that we hope can help fix these blind spots: Consultation should be carried out directly with the governing members of MNC to investigate how the proposed national council for reconciliation directives and operations will interface and engage with the systems and processes of each Métis government; create a task force to investigate how the proposed council and its procedures can be realigned to incorporate and reinforce Canada’s ongoing recognition of Métis self-government; and have the task force create a framework for the council’s operation that recognizes, respects and supports Métis self-government and jurisdiction.
I don’t know if I have a minute, but I would like to say that if we are practising true reconciliation, it means that Canada and the provinces have to recognize every single Indigenous residential school. When I say that, I’m talking about Île-à-la-Crosse, Saskatchewan, which is one of the oldest residential schools in Canada, consisting of seven generations of unresolved harm. I would be remiss if I did not mention that. I thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. LeClair. We will now open the floor to questions from senators, and we will start with the deputy chair, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. I’ve got one short question for each witness, so I’m hoping that you’ll be able to amplify some of what you said with these questions.
Dr. Anderson, what are the critical metrics that you believe would fundamentally represent healing, health and reconciliation?
To Mr. Foss, my question is: In your opinion, how can the national council capture and promote economic reconciliation, and what are the critical metrics that you believe fundamentally represent economic reconciliation?
Vice President LeClair, in your opinion, how can the national council capture and promote reconciliation for Métis people, and what are the critical metrics — I know you’ve talked about this — that you believe fundamentally represent reconciliation for the Métis nation?
Dr. Anderson: Thank you for those questions. I’ll give just a few examples. One thing that is really important is to frame this in terms of leading and lagging indicators, where we can reasonably expect to see progress quickly balanced with some of those longer-term measures. I would also highlight that we need some health care quality and access measures in addition to population health measures.
When we think about things like health care quality measures, we can look at things that we already measure, like emergency room wait times, hip replacement wait times, time between cancer diagnosis and treatment, but ensure we are disaggregating them appropriately for First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. We have ongoing HIV, syphilis and toxic drug supply overdose-related deaths. For all of those public health crises, we need to have appropriate disaggregated data on.
An interim population health measure that we can start to see some progress on sooner rather than later would be premature mortality rates. We will be able to see changes in measures like that before we see them in infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates, which are some of the ones referred to in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. Those are also important. We need to make sure we set up our data infrastructure, but we will not see them in the first five to ten years.
Mr. Foss: Thank you for the question, senator. In one sense, a simple metric is that Indigenous people have similar economic outcomes to other Canadians. Unpack that just for a moment. We know that four out of five Indigenous communities have median incomes below the poverty line in Canada. We know that almost 40% of Indigenous peoples in Canada rely on social assistance as their main source of income. We know that Indigenous people are much further behind the rest of Canadians, on average, in terms of both high school completions and post-secondary degrees.
Although there are obviously a lot of bright spots in Canada with respect to the number of Indigenous entrepreneurs that are growing and starting businesses much faster than other Canadians, there are still so many gaps and so many challenges associated with being Indigenous and participating in Canada’s economy. When Indigenous people have the same outcomes as other Canadians, we will have seen economic reconciliation work.
Ms. LeClair: I have similar answers to my colleague, Mr. Foss. When we look at anything with respect to reconciliation, it is not just a word. I know that this is going to be a complicated process and there’s reconciliation on our side as Métis people — I’ll speak for us — and there’s also reconciliation with both provincial and federal governments.
Part of that reconciliation is true and meaningful consultation. The spirit of the bill is great. It’s being proposed as something that is going to assist both Indigenous peoples and governments to get it right, but you have to have the voice of the people. I am maybe moving away from metrics a little bit, but this is what I wanted to talk about, that meaningful consultation is where someone is listening and thinking about putting that into action.
As Métis people, we have really been the forgotten people, and so our voice in any of this is so critical, from our perspective. To go to Senator McCallum’s comments, there are a lot of people. We don’t want this to look like it’s some pan-Aboriginal process that doesn’t work for our governments. We have our own jurisdictions, we have our own engagement processes, all of that.
I’m sure that didn’t answer your question, but it’s something I wanted to say.
Senator Arnot: That’s a great answer.
The Chair: I’ll just remind my colleagues and the witnesses that, unfortunately, it’s five minutes for the question and answer, and I have a fairly long list of senators.
To the witnesses, feel free to submit a written brief as well if you don’t get to say all you want to today to the clerk, Ms. Andrea Mugny, preferably by the end of the week.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. First, I want to say that I appreciate and agree with a couple of the comments with respect to including professions in the council — medical, legal, economic, environmental. I think having some experts in those fields would be super helpful moving forward.
Respecting the comment that the government should not be setting direction for the council and looking at where we are today in terms of what we see in Bill C-29, my question is: If you were sitting at the first meeting of this council, who would be there with you? I’m alluding to whether the government should have ever said there are guaranteed seats, or should that have come from another place? Should there be non-Indigenous people sitting there? If you could, I would be so curious to know, in the first six months or first year, what are the two priorities?
I want to support Bill C-29. I want to get this going, and so it’s incredibly frustrating to try and figure out how to do that.
Dr. Anderson: That’s a great question. I have two thoughts about this. One of the first things that I would want to do — I’m a public health doctor, so I love data — is that I would really want to get the concrete measurement framework with the indicators and the data sources laid out, because I think having that released publicly is what starts to build that transparency and expectation.
The second thing I would say is that I don’t believe it’s going to be possible for this council to do all of the work or to necessarily be the mechanism for the nation-to-nation relationships that need to happen. But the council sitting down and articulating how is it further engaging, where is it doing direct bilateral conversations for that transparency and accountability — it will need a whole relational and engagement framework as well, so those would be the two priorities I would highlight.
Mr. Foss: That’s a very challenging question to answer, and I’m thankful that I haven’t been charged in my day-to-day work to answer that yet.
In response to at least one portion of that, yes, non-Indigenous people need to be involved in the council. I think many Canadians are fatigued with the talk of reconciliation, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. With Indigenous people with respect to the lack of progress that seems to be happening on it, and non-Indigenous people with respect to the amount of effort that seems to be placed on this. The wounds are deep, and they are not well understood by many Canadians, notwithstanding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its findings and report. There needs to be involvement from non‑Indigenous Canadians to help us understand that a little bit better. It’s challenging, and it will take a lot of time, effort and reporting on things in a way that allows assistance to Indigenous people to move away from social service dependency into having a strong, vibrant Indigenous economies.
Ms. LeClair: It is a tough question, and I think some of the things have been articulated already. I think this is going to take some time to figure out the intention and what the outcomes are. What do we want to see? It’s going to take some time.
The preamble talks about Canada and all Canadian governments. We know that there are some governments that aren’t on the reconciliation plane yet. I think a lot of work will need to be done. I agree with Matthew that non‑Indigenous people need to be involved with this as well because true reconciliation means working together. It’s a tough question.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I thought somebody would have a magic bullet, but apparently not.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for your interesting conversation. It keeps coming back in all the witnesses’ testimony about how we choose the people. Dr. Anderson, you’ve enlightened us on the aspect of how important health is and the other issues.
As to who is doing the choosing, how do we ensure that we have the people that we need at that table? You just mentioned, Ms. LeClair, about the Métis. How do we make sure, because that seems to come up over and over again? We need to have balance, and we also need the skills. How will this happen? Anybody can answer.
Mr. Foss: Maybe I’ll start on that and venture a bold statement around it. There needs to be recognition that it doesn’t need to be perfect the first time and a further recognition that it needs to be Indigenous voices that are the ones that select those members and that will grow and evolve. Hopefully, this commission endures long enough to actually fulfill this outcome. But it needs not to have the Canadian government be the arbiter and decision maker around membership.
Ms. LeClair: I agree with that 100%. The voices, and that’s part of that whole engagement process that I was talking about earlier. You have to engage with the people that we’re talking about — us, as Indigenous people. And we know our experts in our communities, those that are practising reconciliation. So it does have to come from our communities as to who is going to form that. There’s going to be a whole lot of growth going on, changes and that sort of thing. It’s new. But the voice of the committee has to be Indigenous, and it has to come from our communities, chosen by our communities.
Dr. Anderson: I completely agree, and this was a thought that was going through my head too that we can’t be aiming for full or full agreement because it’s never going to happen, and we’re already eight years past when the TRC reports were released. As Matthew mentioned, this is going to be a messy process. We have to have enough transparency in a process that there can be enough buy-in to move it forward without the distractions of having to create the buy-in as the members of the council do the work.
I do think there is a role for the national Indigenous organizations in assisting with the choosing of the initial members. In our National Consortium for Indigenous Medical Education, we also have an elder and a knowledge keepers’ circle. Because this will be contentious, I would suggest that the input and guidance of elders and knowledge-keepers will be critical to supporting the choosing of the members of the council as well as their ongoing support.
Senator Coyle: Well, we’re all circling the same issues, and I thank each of our witnesses today for giving us more to help us in this. This shouldn’t be such a hard bill, but it is. One of the things that’s hardest for us is that none of the three national organizations are endorsing it in its present form. That’s a tough thing for the Standing Senate Indigenous Peoples Committee to be facing at this moment. So when we hear from you, these very sensible, helpful voices, it does help us. We understand. I don’t think anybody at this table expects anything to be perfect at the outset or next year or the year after that. We know that.
We’re at this moment when, as you said, it’s eight years out. We have to get something going, but in getting something going, there has to be a sufficient level of trust in that.
Vice President LeClair, you mentioned that you support it in the spirit but can’t support it in its current shape. You’ve spoken about a further engagement process, consultation, et cetera. When you say that, do you mean that the engagement process or consultation with governing members of the Métis National Council needs to happen before the bill itself is actually passed, or is this something that would happen at a stage in the early stages of setting this thing? How do you see that, just to help us?
Ms. LeClair: Well, first of all, too many times engagement isn’t done previously, which potentially affects our lives as Indigenous people substantively. As we know from history that has happened for years and years. I think, ultimately, it’s a legal construct. It’s something that the federal government and provincial governments have to take seriously. If they’re practising reconciliation, it has to be done meaningfully. There has to be some sort of accommodation where people can consult our communities. We can consult our communities for you. It may be past that point.
Certainly with respect to going forward, there’s still time for consultation. If the bill is passed, then there has to be meaningful consultation.
Senator Coyle: What do you think the response to that would be from the leadership of the Métis National Council who have said they can’t support it in its current state?
Ms. LeClair: Well, I suppose we’ve talked about this a few times here this morning. Look, this is an important bill that impacts our relationship between First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status people. It’s not going to be perfect, and we shouldn’t have an expectation that it would be perfect. But the voices of choosing the panellists, the voices of those people, the issues that you’re looking at any particular time should come from Indigenous people. So that’s all of it.
Too many times we see government programming with the greatest intention to help our communities, and when it comes from the top it rarely works in a very good way. So it’s time that we as Indigenous people say to Canada: Look, you made this mess around residential schools and so on and so forth, it’s us that can clean it up. That’s actually part of reconciliation, saying: Sorry, you didn’t do a good job there, so let me help you. Because we know our community. We know what needs to be reconciled, not just going into a room, shaking a hand and having reconciliation meetings and nothing happens. We have to put reconciliation into action in the best way that we can.
Senator Tannas: We’re obviously high centred here, and the issue is that we now hear there is a deal somewhere coming that we’re going to be asked to approve. The way it stands right now, we can’t approve it. We have made that clear. We’re sitting over here and the government is over there, and they’re rushing around trying to make some kind of a deal. I suspect there is a deal because I hear there is a deal coming. Whether it cuts somebody out or doesn’t, or they all got together and agreed — whatever it is — will you accept that deal if it has the recommendation of the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami? Or do we need to do the consultation all over again, now that we have a new deal that the major Indigenous organizations have blessed? What is your thought on that?
Dr. Anderson: I’m not here as a political representative, so it might be different for how I answer it versus Vice President LeClair. But pragmatically, if there is a deal that the national Indigenous organizations, or NIOs, accept, I would support it because of the urgency to act that we do have. It has to be careful, thoughtful action that sets a solid foundation for meaningful and sustainable progress and reconciliation.
I will share — Senator McCallum was at an event we hosted on September 16, where we were very fortunate to have the Honourable Murray Sinclair there, and he issued us a very serious caution about the rise of hate and the undermining of rights that is coming our way, and he mentioned likely within his lifetime and if not his, during his children’s, who are the same age as me, and I have children too. We have to get structures in place as quickly as we can, not even to advance our rights, although obviously that is necessary, but to protect the progress we’ve made thus far. Personally, I would support it if the NIOs had a new deal that they supported.
Senator Tannas: Do you wish this commission had been named something that had to do with data, that maybe it would have been less contentious if that had been the case? The intention, as I read the recommendations, was to put together a commission that would direct research, gather data and advocate for people to listen to this data. But what I keep hearing is something that is going to be a political claptrap machine that is not going to focus on any of that, if we go with what we’re hearing. You’ve all said that data is critical. Should we be renaming this to maybe get the focus a little tighter? It sure seems that its title is a catch-all for everybody’s hopes and dreams, and that was not the recommendation that was made that we are trying to deal with here. Again, your reaction?
Dr. Anderson: That was a point that I had tried to make; that the scope of the council has to be limited to what can be agreed on and doesn’t interfere with the political rights and nation-to-nation relationships that Indigenous governments do have. So I won’t go so far as to propose a name change, but I do think clarifying and being really clear on that scope is critical.
Mr. Foss: I’d have to echo that. A clear scope of what this is setting out to do would help and would make it more palatable.
Coming back to your first question, if the NIOs all supported it, it certainly would go a long way toward that. But, again, without knowing or seeing what it is, it would be impossible to make the determination simply that because the NIOs supported it, it’s good, as the NIOs don’t always speak for all.
But I don’t know. This is a Herculean task, and reconciliation is Herculean. Maybe it is simpler to eat it one bite at a time and focus just on setting up reporting.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. Based on the time, because I have some deep questions, if I can request the answer in writing.
There is a statement made that says: “ . . . a respectful relationship involves dismantling a centuries’-old political and bureaucratic culture . . . .”
We have heard several times that this process needs to be apolitical. It can never be, because, as I had said, First Nations are born political bodies because of the Indian Act, and our lives have been determined a lot by government policy and government legislation. How can the council be apolitical when the Indian Act is involved?
Do you think we can be apolitical as First Nations when colonialism and colonization are actively still being practised in our lives today? The statement that was made by the TRC goes against the statement to be apolitical.
In his book The Sleeping Giant Awakens: Genocide, Indian Residential Schools, and the Challenge of Conciliation, the author David MacDonald states that critics: “ . . . argue that the term genocide impedes understanding of the IRS system and imperils prospects for conciliation.” He uses the word “conciliation,” not “reconciliation.”
He argues that genocide recognition is, “ . . . an important basis for meaningful discussions of how to engage Indigenous-settler relations in respectful and proactive ways.”
Would you agree that the committee should focus on the Indigenous-settler relationship? That’s an area that First Nations today cannot go into. They’re busy reclaiming their ceremony. They’re reclaiming their identities. They’re working on this side, which is sacred, and the council should not go there, but the council should be helping by focusing here.
Would you agree there is difficulty in moving toward conciliation after genocide when many settlers, including health professionals, know little of the residential schools and legacies of ongoing colonization as well as colonialism, not only in terms of health standards when we look at health care delivery, but education, double standards of care and racism? Are you starting to see a change in the understanding of health professionals and how — in the way of the disruption of the values and skills, levels of abuse, loss of language and culture, and estrangement from families and communities and how it negatively affected the environment of First Nations? I’m thinking about the conference that we went to.
The last question is: What is true conciliation between First Nations and the Métis? I look at what’s happening today and how far we’re moving apart; so when you look at that, we’re not moving forward together. It just seems that this wanting to be in the council — and I’m going to be blunt — the priority is funding that people want, and yet 92 to 96% of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was First Nations, and yet everyone wants money. I resent that. I’m not saying that it’s that.
Then we look at the Métis Nation, and my concern is that the membership hasn’t been tightened, so we have a lot of self-identification that has come forward.
The Métis and the First Nations are family. We should be moving forward together. How do we accomplish that when bills like this seem to separate us?
I can send you the questions; I’ll put them in writing and send them to you.
Ms. LeClair: I look forward to answering those questions.
To your last point, that’s all part of the colonialism that is so deeply part of the way that we’ve grown up. It’s part of our history. It’s an important part for us — this is a great conversation — to be able to work together.
I think of the legislation. Everybody around the table knows that there was a protest by Ontario First Nations saying whatever their argument was; they have a right to protest and all of those things. The problem is that there is a misunderstanding of what that legislation means. The duty to consult, for example, hasn’t been triggered.
In Saskatchewan, we’re a close-knit community, First Nations and Métis. We’re able to sit down and talk early about our legislation. I’m going to quickly say that’s all part of colonialism and missing the point and actually looking at it. Very good questions.
The Chair: Thank you for that. A reminder to submit your answers to Senator McCallum’s questions in writing before the end of the week.
Senator Busson: I’m new to this committee. I was going to hold off asking a question and making a comment.
I’m struck by the intensity and complexity of what we’re facing. On the plane last night coming here from British Columbia, I watched Bones of Crows. It should be curriculum for us, at least, and certainly schoolchildren, et cetera.
I’m struck by the comments. I’ve heard over and over again in different conversations around issues nothing about us without us. I totally get that. Then the other comment is let’s not strive for perfection at the cost of getting something done.
I’m wondering if you could make a quick comment, because we don’t have a lot of time. You must be totally frustrated to see this go around and around with the Catch-22. If you had one thing that you could throw out there that we could put into our report that could help to kickstart this, one blue-sky thing that you could make happen, what would it be?
Mr. Foss: I would suggest simplifying the bill and removing a lot of its elements; it goes too far in being prescriptive of what this is and should be. I think therein lies the problem of government prescribing, as opposed to having Indigenous voices prescribing. That would make it a lot easier to accept and swallow around what it will do and who will be a part of it, to leave that for Indigenous voices to decide.
Ms. LeClair: I would 100% agree with Mr. Foss.
Dr. Anderson: I would agree. I would focus heavily on technical and professional expertise and the scope of setting out the data indicators and reporting on them.
The other thing I’ll note is it talked about providing a report to the minister who then makes an annual report on the state of reconciliation; that should actually be we provide the technical report to the minister and the NIOs who also get a chance to speak to the state of reconciliation because that’s an opportunity for voice. To me, it is meaningful. When was the last time we had the NIOs on the floor of Parliament speaking in a shared way?
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you very much to the witnesses.
Thank you very much for acknowledging the passing of Joyce Echaquan, and for emphasizing that nothing is perfect. Through imperfection — I have five children, and we are not a perfect family, but we are trying to grow together, and I imagine the same is true for Canada as well, because it is huge.
So, in terms of your comments, we would like to have your briefs or your speeches in writing, if you can send them to us, because there is plenty to react to. I am the sponsor of the bill, and in the discussions with the new minister, I would like to say that there were some interesting points here that should not be overlooked.
Finally, I would like to thank you again for all you do in your respective territories.
[English]
The Chair: The time for this panel is complete. I thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. If any of you would like to expand on your earlier remarks and provide answers to outstanding questions, I invite you to do so in writing via the clerk before the end of the week.
I’d now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses, two of my former colleagues from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, Chief Shelley Sabattis from the Oromocto First Nation and Executive Director, John G. Paul. From the Athabasca Tribal Council, Karla Buffalo, Chief Executive Officer.
Thank you all for joining us today. Our witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes each, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session. I will now invite Chief Shelley Sabattis to give her opening remarks.
Shelley Sabattis, Chief, Oromocto First Nation, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good morning, everyone. My name is Chief Shelley Sabattis. I am from Oromocto First Nation and from the Wolastoqiyik nation. Thank you for the invitation to speak to Bill C-29.
I wish to quickly note that we are the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, which was federally incorporated in 1995 and is the policy, research and advocacy secretariat for 33 Mi’kmaq communities, combined with Wolastoqiyik, Passamaquoddy and Innu, along with different nations and communities. APC is governed by a board of directors comprised of nine of the chiefs. We advocate to speak with one voice on behalf of the Atlantic First Nations communities. Through research and analysis, we develop and table policy alternatives for matters affecting First Nations communities.
In November 2004, the APC chiefs mandated APC staff to provide outreach information sessions to former residential school students in the Atlantic. The intent was to ensure former residential school students had the most up-to-date information on the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
Approximately 2,000 Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik, Passamaquoddy and others attended the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School from 1929 to 1967. Since this was the only recognized residential school east of Quebec, children came from all across the Atlantic region and parts of Quebec to attend this facility.
Bill C-29 was created from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the TRC, Calls to Action 53 to 56. They were developed after massive engagements across Canada with Indian residential school survivors and their families. While we do support this, we raise several questions and recommendations.
We understand that the board would be comprised of several directors, and the three directors may be nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. Over time, the board’s representation would grow to include other Indigenous organizations, youth, gender diversity and various regions.
Will this board also ensure that Indian residential school survivors and their descendants will be part of this? Furthermore, will the board ensure that Atlantic Canada is also a member? This is especially in light of the Atlantic Indian residential school info that I mentioned earlier.
I recommend that the Indian residential school survivors, as well as their descendants in the Atlantic region, are properly represented in this national council.
Independence and being at arm’s length from government is critical for the national council to be able to do its work. This is also part of the TRC Calls to Action. It ensures that the national council can hold the government accountable and free of undue influence of the fear of being honest and forthcoming in this work. There’s a big expectation of this council, in other words.
The national council can properly oversee and evaluate the government’s progress on the Calls to Action, publish progress reports and continue sharing the full history of the Indian residential school system. This will allow the government to ensure that all departments cooperate and produce relevant documents. This also allows for continued sharing and disclosure of the Indian residential school legacy.
We recommend that the national council be able to hold the government accountable for document disclosure with respect to the Indian residential school system. Reconciliation is a long-term and ongoing process. This is especially important in light of the numerous adverse factors and situations that Indigenous people historically and currently face. How will the government guarantee that the national council will be permanent, an ongoing process and an ongoing existing body? Reconciliation cannot have an end date.
We recommend that the national council be established as a permanent and ongoing body. The TRC stated that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also referred to as UNDRIP, is to be used as a framework for reconciliation. Canada has updated UNDRIP and the work continues in seeing that this is properly implemented across the country. Will the national council be able to hold the government accountable with respect to the UNDRIP Action Plan for implementation? This is especially in light that UNDRIP is also a part of the Calls to Action.
We recommend that the national council have the ability to monitor the progress of UNDRIP, as it is also part of the Calls to Action. While the TRC work and Calls to Action are very important, it must be ensured and noted that the national council’s work does not constitute consultation with respect to the duty to consult, as outlined by several Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Furthermore, it needs to be reassured that Bill C-29 and any work or results arising out of it shall not be construed so as to recognize what exists in our treaties today, Aboriginal treaties and other rights or freedoms that pertain to Indigenous peoples. This is consistent with section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as other laws. Will these additional legal notes be upheld with respect to the government and the national commission? It’s critical that Indigenous rights are protected as the national council carries out its work.
We recommend that it be noted that with respect to the national commission’s work, that the government does not constitute consultation with respect to the duty to consult and that any work results arising out of this shall not be construed as derogative from any Aboriginal treaty or other results of freedoms that pertain to Indigenous peoples.
There are questions and recommendations from the Atlantic region which I will pass on to my colleague, Mr. John Paul, the Executive Director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat.
Karla Buffalo, Chief Executive Officer, Athabasca Tribal Council: [Indigenous language spoken]. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Karla Buffalo. I’m the CEO of the Athabasca Tribal Council in Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo, Alberta. The Athabasca Tribal Council, also known as ATC, serves five First Nations — the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Fort McKay First Nation, Mikisew Cree First Nation, the Fort McMurray 468 First Nation and the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation — — by providing relevant and innovative programs and services that enrich the wellbeing, health and prosperity of its people.
Our organization’s focus is on fiscal sovereignty, cultural revitalization and fostering strong and thriving communities and Indigenous people. We strongly believe in the need for authentic and action-orientated reconciliation. The ongoing delays in making significant and measurable progress on reconciliation have deeply impacted the communities we serve. The unhealed trauma of colonization, the Indian residential school system, the suppression of cultural practices, and the lack of opportunity to thrive has led to Indigenous people having addiction and mental health struggles. Since January, there have been over 30 deaths in our communities by overdose, suicide and self-harm. This is more death than we reported during the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our communities that we serve are in crisis.
On September 7, 2023, a regional state of emergency was declared by the Athabasca Tribal Council. We need governments to realize that delays in action on meaningful plans like reconciliation create crisis in the communities that have the same or even greater impact than that of natural disasters like wildfires, flooding or even pandemics.
We are here to encourage a collaborative process with all nations respecting their individual sovereignty and self-governance. The establishment of a national council is an opportunity to help further meaningful reconciliation and give accountability to the progress being made on the TRC’s Calls to Action that have yet to be implemented by Canada. It is important that any new structure established by the federal government be Indigenous-led and follow Indigenous laws and legal systems in its creation.
ATC supports the establishment of a national council for the purpose of advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, but as it stands now, ATC has some serious concerns about the bill, such as the under-representation of Indigenous people in the committee structure. Additionally, the representation needs to be balanced by genders and ages, including a balance between youth and elder voices.
Bill C-29 does not include any measurable outcomes or targets, and no formal structure is given regarding the metrics set out to the committee. We believe it is crucial that the proposed legislation include processes to measure outcomes. The current bill does not bind the federal government to provide funding to the national council, which is necessary to ensure that the national council has adequate resources to carry out their mandate.
The legislation, as it is written now, regarding the disclosure of information does not appear to be adequate to allow the national council to obtain the necessary information it will require in order to carry out its mandate. Bill C-29 lacks accountability measures by the Prime Minister and Canada to recognize and implement the national council’s recommendations. This national council must be given the appropriate tools to hold the government accountable for the progress on reconciliation in all areas.
ATC recommends the following amendments to Bill C-29. First, there needs to be specific metrics outlined in the bill to give the national council structure and to measure accountability. Measurements and targets must encompass all areas of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action. This document is not a checklist to complete, it is a guide toward long-lasting reconciliation to have Indigenous peoples move forward from being an oppressed minority to having equal, treaty and inherent rights as Indigenous peoples of Canada.
Two, funding commitment on an ongoing basis. The Government of Canada announced in its 2019 budget that a total of $126.5 million would be allocated to support the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, including $1.5 million to support the first year of the council’s operations. However, there are no funding commitments in the proposed legislation, and it is unclear how the national council will be funded on an ongoing basis.
Research and reporting requirements of the national council are very extensive. In order to carry out its mandate, the national council will need to hire a large staff, including investigators. A funding commitment in the proposed legislation must be included to ensure adequate funding to support the national council’s operations.
Number three: Clearly indicate how the council will be able to access the necessary information to carry out its mandate. Bill C-29 should be amended to give the national council the power to subpoena in order to ensure that the national council has the ability to obtain all the necessary information they require.
Number four: The council would benefit from an independent process to appoint the initial board of directors, allowing for a more transparent and less politicized process. Having an open and transparent process that honours Indigenous forms of governance is necessary for the national council to have relevance for all communities.
Number five: Increase the accountability required of the federal government. The federal government must take all steps necessary to ensure that the recommendations of the national council are implemented. While the Athabasca Tribal Council supports the passing of Bill C-29 to help support reconciliation efforts, it is important that the values of reconciliation be upheld by having the appropriate structure and accountability measures in place. If the goals of the national council are to monitor, evaluate, conduct research and report on the progress being made in all sectors of Canadian society and by governments in Canada, it is imperative that the national council have the appropriate tools to carry out their mandate in a meaningful way.
Simply put, the national council should not be viewed as yet another check box to check off the list.
Thank you. I look forward to answering any of the questions you may have, and I have also provided a briefing note with more details.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Buffalo. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: I have a question for Chief Sabattis and Mr. Paul of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. It really distills to this: Do you believe Bill C-29 should go forward in its current form, knowing that not all the stakeholders are likely to be satisfied? Equally important: Do you believe that it will create the much-expected and much-needed impact on reconciliation in its current form?
Ms. Buffalo, your briefing is really concise and focused, and a number of the issues you’ve identified have been identified by other individuals, particularly the funding issue and the endowment model. Do you believe, Ms. Buffalo, that Bill C-29 should move forward, even if it has those gaps? Do you believe it will have the impact on the lives of the Cree and Dene people that you represent?
Ms. Sabattis: Mr. Paul, do you want to answer that question?
John G. Paul, Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: I can try to answer it the best I can.
I guess there is not going to be any perfect solution, whatever the bill is going to be. However, I think we’re way past the time frame to actually start implementing the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, and it is time to start focusing on the truth and action. Moving quicker would be beneficial to start the momentum, but at the same time, many people have discussed the need to be very focused in terms of its intent and expected outcomes over the first five years as well as its evolution beyond.
In terms of long-term funding, it needs a commitment of at least a decade to get things done that need to get done and build confidence and support across communities and across all groups in Canada, as well as the general public, about its intent, its purpose and its intended outcomes, which hopefully can be measured over time so that people can actually see what can be possible with reconciliation.
Ms. Buffalo: The two questions that I heard were, whether we should be supporting moving forward if there are still gaps in the process and whether there would be a positive impact on the creation of a national council on the Cree and Dene people we serve within this area.
I think that the earlier panel really spoke a lot about the fact that there is no perfect process and it will take time to really clarify the mandate and operations of this council and identify the measurable outcomes that want to be solidified in the process. I think it’s really important that we do not delay in the creation of a national council for reconciliation because these processes take time. It will not be perfect in its initial creation. It will be developed over time. It will be influenced by the situations of the day. Therefore, I would really recommend that no further delay is put in place and that it will grow and mature as the people that are involved in the process build out its mandate. I would recommend that we move forward.
The second question was whether it would make a positive impact. I truly do think it would. I think that having measurable outcomes to really track and set standards on a national level is critical for ensuring that change is happening nationally and that it reaches the grassroots within our region. I am passionate and supportive about this process moving forward because I truly believe it will impact our Cree and Dene people of the North in a positive way.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, and I just want to thank Ms. Buffalo for her clear and concise memorandum to the committee. I think each one of the five recommendations is well taken. Thank you for that.
Senator Sorensen: I echo those comments. This is an excellent briefing and probably the clearest we potentially have seen in writing on suggested amendments.
My question is for Ms. Buffalo. I’m interpreting your comments and suggestions on lack of independence as you not believing that the current four guaranteed seats named for the council should not have been the decision of the Government of Canada. My question to you is this: Who should or should have selected what I would call a steering committee? That’s my word for whom those four organizations may be.
Who should, in fact, be naming the other members?
Ms. Buffalo: I really wish I had a very clear answer and a path forward to give you. I think it’s an incredibly difficult decision when you are trying to find representation across a national organization with many different cultures, languages and political bodies.
Again, I really wish I had a simple, straightforward answer.
I think one of the things that’s most important is being inclusive — of having representation of people that are trusted and respected as Indigenous people, as Indigenous leaders and as thought leaders who can really guide the governance of the development of the national council and the mandate it has created.
I do find it’s challenging when we are identifying political organizations because they may need to be in the position of pushing agendas other than the ones at the heart of truth and reconciliation efforts on a national level. I know that doesn’t necessarily answer your question, but being inclusive, having a thought and technical leaders that are recognized and respected would be my preference for the initial appointment of the board of directors, as opposed to political organizations.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to quote from The Sleeping Giant Awakens:
The contours of Indigenous self-determination and the exercise of hard rights will be different for each Indigenous nation, and nations are invariably going to change and evolve as they seek to overcome centuries of colonization and genocide. There will be no one universal solution and no one way of establishing certainty about what conciliation or reconciliation will look like. Conciliation will be part of a long-term relationship building and not a terminus. This is something few of us will see in our lifetimes at a national level, but we need to promote positive change now so that our children and grandchildren will hopefully see the benefits instead of the harms of our actions today.
Could you tell us what you would see as the positive change that is critical to promote this new relationship and how we could get to that positive change?
Ms. Buffalo: You guys ask some tough questions that we have to answer in a very short time. I may have to follow up with some written briefing on the matter.
Can you just rephrase specifically about what you would like me to focus on?
Senator McCallum: We’ve had so many different people that come in and go in many directions. Some go toward economic conciliation; some are looking at the Indigenous‑non‑Indigenous relationship. In your view, what are some of the most positive changes that you would recommend so that we move ahead? Dr. Anderson, one of the previous witnesses, said we should get structures in place to protect the progress we’ve made against racism.
What do you think are the most positive changes that we should be looking at or championing?
Ms. Buffalo: Again, a great question. I think reconciliation embodies so many different areas. It is challenging to narrow it down to one or two, and part of the challenge of the council is the large mandate.
I will try to make it simple, even though there are many different categories, and focus on two.
I do believe that economic reconciliation is probably one of the most critical to ensure that Indigenous communities are engaged in reconciliation and economic reconciliation because when there is funding that is generated by a nation that allows them to be self-sustaining, set the direction of governance and operate under their own law and legislation, that is one true sovereignty. And if they have the means to be able to do that, it puts them on an equivalent level with other Canadians, I believe that is the foundation for reconciliation. You can unpack that in many different ways on how to achieve economic reconciliation, but if you want additional detail, I can certainly follow up.
The other piece is that reconciliation is about changing the hearts and minds of Canadians. I think that needs to be done through education because I believe that has long-lasting impacts on how we as a society operate, how we understand the traumas and tragedies of the past and how they impact laws and legislation today which continue colonization. Education of non‑Indigenous Canadians to understand that is required to make a change in society overall.
The Chair: I will remind Ms. Buffalo and our witnesses, if you wish to submit further information, please do so by the end of the week. I’ll now go to John Paul.
Mr. Paul: From my perspective, an important element of this work or of this effort will be about perceptions within our people and our communities, but also public perceptions. It’s my perspective that this has to be understood at both a national level and in each province — the realities that exist in each province within Canada and the realities of variable communities across the country. They have to be able to believe, see and feel empowered toward closing the poverty gap or the income gap in their communities to create a better life and a better community for their people. I believe that many Canadians also look at it as being about building a better future and a better life. We need to help empower our people through positive change and reconciliation. If you believe in its ultimate end, in 50 years’ time, things will change. I believe that because the TRC recommendations are built around a foundation of truth from survivors and from our people that those truths will translate into real values, changes in values and beliefs about reconciliation that can and will create a better future for our communities and, hopefully, for all of Canada.
Ms. Sabattis: Something that just keeps catching my attention is our communities right now are between five and seven generations of residential school trauma. It’s now in our DNA. When you look at our children and grandchildren, you can see it. You can see the trauma. You can see the pain. They don’t know where that’s coming from. It’s going to take two or three generations to at least begin the healing process. It can’t go on any longer, and it’s got to be done so that it makes sense in each of the different regions because some of our experiences were a little bit different than the others, but it all results in very extreme devastation and trauma to our communities. So many things have changed in our culture like childbearing practices, simple respect and the way you conduct yourself. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done, and I wanted to mention that because what keeps coming back to me are the years of intergenerational trauma that is now in our DNA. How are we going to get that out? Who is going to foot the bill? How are we going to do this process, and how is it going to be represented across Canada?
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Sabattis.
Senator McCallum: In that same book, John Borrows says:
Reconciliation sounds nice when discussed in the abstract, but reconciliation practised in context requires that Indigenous peoples reconcile themselves to colonialism. This is hardly a cause for celebration.
Can you comment on that?
Mr. Paul: As a son of a survivor, you know, I’ve seen what residential schools and the history of residential schools have done to our people across Atlantic Canada and in the various communities, and the trauma that Chief Sabattis describes is real and present today.
For me, the future really needs to be about change in a positive way to reaffirm our culture, our language, our identity of who we are and build upon that and also build a future through economic reconciliation that closes the gap of poverty between what it is now and what it has been in a way that makes our people and our communities better.
I believe that our communities have and will continue to contribute greatly to the economy of all the provinces. I think our vision of the future from a community’s perspective is very real, and it’s not an abstract. Poverty is not an abstract in a community. Poverty is not an abstract for an individual, for an elder or for a young person. Loss of identity is not abstract for people dealing with addiction, abuse or other issues. Those are realities. They have to deal with that.
We are trying to empower them to build a better self-determining future so that these things can actually change and improve in a way that makes sense to them and to their future.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paul.
Chief Sabattis, anything to add?
Ms. Sabattis: I think I’m good for that question.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief.
Ms. Buffalo: I think the only thing is that I might want to just build on what Mr. Paul has mentioned, and that is the importance of cultural revitalization and connection to land cannot be underemphasized in this process.
In terms of reconciliation, really ensuring that there are resources that are available nationally and within communities to support language revitalization, cultural revitalization is, in my opinion, at the core of, one, healing; two, truth telling; and, three, the foundation for everything. Without culture, without your language, without your land connection, that is who we are as our people, and that really needs to be a priority in ensuring funding is provided at the provincial and national levels. Also, metrics to track that revitalization is occurring and being supported by resources to ensure it is accomplished must be in place.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
The time for this panel is now complete. Again, I wish to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
If any of you would like to expand on your earlier remarks or provide answers to outstanding questions, I invite you to do so in writing before the end of the week and send them to Andrea Mugny, the clerk of the committee.
(The committee adjourned.)