THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 4, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:46 p.m. [ET], in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business); and, in public, 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.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I would like to acknowledge 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 would also like to take a moment to mention that today, on October 4, we commemorate the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People. Let’s remember those who are no longer with us and the survivors, families and communities who continue to display remarkable strength in their fight for justice.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: I’m David Arnot, a senator from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Hartling: Senator Nancy Hartling from New Brunswick, the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Prosper: I am Senator Prosper. I am from Nova Scotia, the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq people. Thank you.
Senator Martin: Welcome, minister. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Boniface: I’m Gwen Boniface, filling in for Senator Mary Coyle.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis from the Laurentides senate division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, homeland Treaty 6 territory.
Senator D. Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut, Inuit Nunangat.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
Today, we will continue the committee’s study on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
Before we begin, I would like to ask everyone to please keep your exchanges as brief as possible. Due to time constraints, I will remind you that each senator will have five minutes to ask a question and receive an answer. When we get to the four-minute mark, I’ll hold up this trusty sign to let everyone know they have one minute left. We’ll start with committee members and then move on to other colleagues. If there is time, we will begin a second round.
I will ask witnesses to provide any outstanding answers in writing before the end of the week.
I would like to now introduce our first panel of witnesses. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we have the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Welcome. The minister is accompanied by officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Mary-Luisa Kapelus, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction; and Kate Ledgerwood, Director General, Reconciliation Secretariat; and from the Department of Justice, Dr. Seetal Sunga, Senior Counsel, Legal Services. Thank you all for joining us today.
The minister will provide opening remarks of five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. With that, I invite the minister to give his opening remarks.
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Good evening. Thank you, senator.
Kwe kwe, ullukkut, tansi and hello.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we’re gathered here on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people. I’m also pleased to appear before this committee for the first time as minister. I look forward to working with every one of you closely on issues of mutual importance that are critically important to the work that you do as a committee here. I value the work of this committee, as well as the unique experiences and perspectives of each one of you. I welcome the opportunity to benefit from your ongoing advice as our government works to advance reconciliation.
I want to thank my predecessor, Minister Marc Miller, for all of his work on this bill, as well as his staff.
I want to recognize that this committee appearance comes days after the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation — or Orange Shirt Day — on September 30.
Today is the National Day of Action for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People. Our thoughts are with the survivors and communities impacted, with a renewed commitment today to ensure that we end this national tragedy.
We’re here today because, for many years, Indigenous peoples have called for the Government of Canada to account for the role it plays in reconciliation and the search for truth. We’re here because in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called on the Parliament of Canada to create a national council for reconciliation because progress on reconciliation needs to be measured if we are to advance it.
[Translation]
This is exactly what Bill C-29 will do. If passed, it will establish a national council for reconciliation as a permanent, indigenous-led, civil society organization.
[English]
I want to go back to the original vision of former Grand Chief Dr. Willie Littlechild and the interim board, a vision based on their research and public engagement on the council’s mandate, governance and operations.
[Translation]
This vision includes a national council that lifts up all of the good work that is happening to support reconciliation, showcases wisdom and the good paths forward, and asks what governments are doing to support reconciliation.
[English]
This vision includes a national council with maximum flexibility to grow and change over time, a council that connects with all Canadians, because reconciliation is for all Canadians to act on and a council that thinks beyond the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action because reconciliation must continue after the Calls to Action have been addressed.
From this initial vision, the Transitional Committee for the National Council for Reconciliation further engaged Indigenous and non-Indigenous technical experts and provided us with the recommendations that led to the bill before us today.
The purpose of this bill is to get the council set up and ensure it achieves its mandate. The council will be in charge of where it goes from here.
[Translation]
Their first task will be to draft an action plan based on extensive collaboration. They will begin by consulting, listening and building relationships.
[English]
The council will not take the place of existing relationships. Nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships will be central to our renewed relationship. The council will be entirely different than the permanent bilateral mechanisms and relationships already in place. It will be an organization that is independent from government.
However, the federal government will have responsibilities to help the council to achieve its mandate. That’s what this bill sets out. This includes sharing information, which, of course, will be essential to the council’s monitoring role. It will also ensure the council will always include First Nations, Inuit and Métis representation and that the board will include youth, women, men and gender-diverse people from all regions of Canada. The vision of the interim board and the transitional committee is that directors sit as individuals acting in the council’s best interests, not as representatives of other organizations or interests.
I do want to acknowledge the work of both the interim board as well as the transitional committee and thank them for the many years of work that they have put in.
Budget 2019 invested $125 million in an endowment fund to ensure the council has the necessary funding to be established and begin its important work. We acknowledge that more funding will likely be required, and it will be for the council to identify future funding needs through the development of its action plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, time is of the essence. This bill is designed to be a flexible framework, and it is the product of years of advocacy by indigenous leaders, experts and communities.
[English]
I ask for your support so that the council can begin its good work that is urgently needed to advance this country toward meaningful reconciliation while being open to ways of strengthening the bill. I look forward to expanding on my brief remarks through your thoughtful questions.
Meegwetch, qujannamiik, marsee, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Anandasangaree.
I will open the floor for questions from senators, starting with the Senator Arnot, our deputy chair.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Minister Anandasangaree, for coming tonight.
You are probably aware that we have heard from a number of witnesses and have had almost 100 proposed amendments to the bill. Many witnesses have stated that they want to get this council going, and that’s the imperative. Some issues we’ve heard include the manner of the committee membership, how it will be chosen; the mandate and whether it is strong enough to accomplish the breadth of the actions; and the money.
I want to ask you about the money because there may be a lot of unanticipated demands as things get going. I think the initial start-up funding is great. The endowment of $125 million would generate roughly $6.2 million at 5%, so that’s a cap, in a sense. You hinted that you recognize — as many witnesses have stated their concerns — the money may not be robust enough to meet the demands of the future. How do you propose to assuage that concern? Thank you.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. It’s good to see you again. I know we were able to meet each other at the Whitecap historical signing of the treaty.
This bill was developed essentially through a process of consultation. We had essentially two stages, which included both the transitional committee as well as the interim committee that advised us. The $125 million in terms of an endowment, as you’re aware, is not a usual form to finance any particular initiative of the government.
In this particular case, one of the key recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is that this council be independent. It would be independent of government, which means there is no ongoing dependency on government. The initial $125 million is a significant investment into an endowment that will enable the council to operate from a starting point in a robust way. Now, as we develop the council and as the council comes up with an action plan and figures out the scope of the work and budgetary requirements, we need to be open to definitely increasing that. I, for one — and I can assure you our government — will respond when that call is there. As a starting point, $125 million is a significant amount of money, you will agree, that will get this started. As the work plan is developed and implemented, we will certainly be open to additional conversations, and my personal commitment would be to support additional funding when required.
Senator Tannas: Welcome, minister.
In the spring, we heard from many organizations that wanted automatic membership on the board or didn’t want somebody else to have automatic membership on the board, et cetera. For us — certainly for me — and where we are now in our knowledge, the most alarming is that the three major national Indigenous organizations — AFN, MNC and ITK — counselled us not to pass this bill. We haven’t heard that this has changed; we haven’t forgotten. Can you give us some assurance that their views have changed? Should we call them before we have clause by clause?
I’m just a little bit puzzled about the cart before the horse in terms of us proceeding to a slew of amendments coming. We haven’t, I don’t think, figured out the secret sauce that will fix all of this so that we can move forward. This is such an important initiative that I want to make sure we have it right. It would be crazy to move forward without the support of the major national Indigenous organizations.
Can you shed some light on your conversations and assure us they are in support or tell us they’re not, whatever it is?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator, for that question.
I’m not going to speak for the three national Indigenous organizations. They speak for themselves and I will let their testimony stand, but I would also invite you to get clarification from them.
My understanding is that there are some concerns expressed, particularly by the ITK, on the issue of whether this particular mechanism, this council, will diminish the ongoing partnerships that we have at a bilateral level from Inuit-Crown Partnership, a table that meets regularly and that has advanced reconciliation in a very meaningful way since 2017. There are some concerns whether this will, in some way, diminish that relationship or whether this will overtake the bilateral relationship we have at the tables.
I can assure you, as a minister, one of the first things I learned is how valuable those tables are. In my previous roles, I’ve been able to attend many of those conversations, and they are very fruitful and frank tables where we actually achieve results. That is not going to change under any circumstances. What’s in here is clear. It is not in any way to replace the tables that exist, and I think in my opening remarks I hinted at that.
One thing I would add is that if there are recommendations for amendments, one of the things I would suggest you consider is maybe putting in some language around that to ensure that bilateral tables are paramount. I think that would likely result in additional support.
We have done a fair bit of work over the years on getting to this point. I recognize the hesitation that is there, but going forward, there is clearly a path and a need for this as we work toward reconciliation.
Senator Tannas: Would you recommend that we proceed even if we can’t obtain the recommendation or the consent of the three organizations?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Senator, I don’t want to speak out of turn here, but I would invite you to have those conversations, whether in writing or maybe float a potential amendment with them. That would maybe be the best way to address this.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Welcome, minister.
To clarify, were you saying to Senator Tannas and to the committee that the government is open to amendments from the Senate on this bill to clarify language? There is one item I wanted to raise, but in your response to Senator Tannas, are you showing your openness for amendments?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Senator, we are open to amendments. We are open to constructive dialogue. I have a team here, and I think that if there are ideas, we would definitely be able to give you a sense of where we are. We come here to the Senate so that bills can be strengthened, and over the years I think you’ve managed to play a critical role in enhancing the bills. I would suggest that if there are amendments, then we would certainly look at them. I can’t make any firm commitments now, but I would certainly look at them. I have a legal team and people I need to consult.
Senator Martin: On that note, there is one exclusion or omission that has been brought to our attention, a criticism that we heard about this bill in regard to the exclusion of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples as a mandatory member on the board of directors. I understand that, in the other place during committee, an amendment was made to include them, but then it was removed at third reading or the report stage.
In my conversations and in our committee, we heard from CAP. They represent 800,000 Indigenous voices and are a very important national group that has been operating for over 50 years and is recognized as a national entity. Could you explain why your government decided to reverse the committee’s decision and effectively remove their voice from the board of directors, and is this something we can consider as an amendment from this committee?
Mr. Anandasangaree: My understanding is that the committee made a decision on that issue, and I think that was resolved at the House of Commons.
My perspective on this is that there are three national Indigenous organizations that are represented: the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council, as well as NWAC. These are part of the between 9 and 13 members that form this council. While they will recommend and put forward members, like anyone who serves on a board, the primary role of that individual would be to serve that board and to serve that organization as per the Canada Business Corporations Act.
As part of our extensive catchment of different Indigenous people, I invite you to look at clause 12 of the bill, which outlines the need for gender diversity and a range of issues — young people, women. I believe that the interest will be captured.
Certainly, if an organization like CAP wants to put forward membership, there will be outlets and avenues for them to put their membership forward. I think that would be the best way to handle any other organizations that may seek to have an additional voice. I think that would be the best way to address it through this legislation.
Senator Martin: I know that clause outlines the diversity of voices that would be at the table on the council, but I think CAP is in a separate category in terms of its national scope and it being a nationally recognized organization. Would you agree?
Mr. Anandasangaree: CAP is an organization I’m very familiar with, and they have appeared at committee on numerous occasions. There isn’t a study in which they don’t appear. I used to be at Justice, and before that I was on the Commons INAN committee. Yes, I heard them make submissions many times on a range of issues. There are a number of other organizations as well that do speak — whether they’re regional or they have other focuses —
Senator Martin: And are national in scope.
Mr. Anandasangaree: And are national in scope.
The way this has come about, the three national Indigenous organizations are recognized as well as NWAC. There is a clear need to have the representation of women identified in this space. Consequently, I think that we found the right balance to ensure that other voices are heard.
Senator D. Patterson: Welcome, minister.
You have addressed the concern that I wanted to raise as a representative of Inuit who are nationally represented by ITK. Natan Obed was very clear in his testimony to us, which you are familiar with. Withholding support for Bill C-29 in its current form, he said, “I think we really want to make sure that Inuit participate in this council.”
You’ve answered Senator Tannas’s question, but I would like to bring a little bit more clarity, because Nathan Obed, whom we all respect, did point out that Inuit did not participate in the co‑development of this legislation. He was very clear on that. He called it a flawed engagement process — that was before your time — and he said:
… this legislature should fix the issues with this legislation prior to passage. It’s likely that the only way the Inuit could support this bill is if it was either amended to establish the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee as the mechanism directing work on Inuit-specific reconciliation measures or if the scope of the council’s functions were narrowed and defined.
That was his testimony to our committee.
I was pleased to hear you say you’d be open to amendment. You also said in your address that it wouldn’t take the place of existing bilateral relationships, but the bill doesn’t say anything about that right now. Would you be open to an amendment that would confirm that the permanent bilateral mechanisms will continue to be the main forum to address Inuit concerns and do not, as Mr. Obed put it in a response to Senator Arnot, confuse the rights-based relationships that Inuit have with the Crown?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Yes, senator, I will certainly be open to that.
Just to clarify, I think you suggested that this was co‑developed. There are a number of pieces of legislation that have come forward that are co-developed, including Bill C-91 that you and I worked on many years ago. This particular piece of legislation was not co-developed. The process was somewhat different. As a result, the co-development element is something that is missing. It came out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.
Specifically, there are two different elements that we have here that are somewhat unique, and one is the interim committee. They both, in fact, did the work of consultation, because it continues to be an ongoing process. Even once the council is established, there is an obligation here for the council to continuously consult and engage. I recognize that there might be differences in the level of consultation, and I’ll be the first to acknowledge it, but there were clearly many different ways of consultation here that are not the usual forms as in pieces of legislation that are not co-developed.
To your second point, I can assure you that the bilateral relationships are central to the work that we do and to many of the achievements that we’ve had, particularly with the ITK and the Inuit, so we would be willing to definitely look at language that would clarify that.
Senator D. Patterson: Okay, that’s great. You can probably expect something to come.
Mr. Obed also raised the issue of the mandate. In particular, he felt the mandate was ill-defined and open to interpretation by council members. He said:
. . . it will continue to rely on individual experts to self‑define a vision for assessing and potentially defining reconciliation. This approach will be unstable and fragmented, but more importantly, it will be divorced from the Inuit representative institutions attempting to work in this area.
What reasoning did your department have in leaving the mandate for this council so open to interpretation? Wouldn’t it have been better to define the mandate and give clear parameters to the council?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Senator, one of the things with respect to this council and with respect to this legislation is that it is an attempt by the government to decolonize the way governments have operated, whether it is from a funding perspective — again, the TRC Calls to Action called for long-term sustainable funding and independence from the government, elements that will essentially enable the organization to self-determine its work. As a result, issues such as an action plan that needs to be developed and acted upon, the ongoing consultation and engagement that is required, ensuring that there is a survivor-centric focus — those are left to the council to determine and figure out.
There is a line that I’m trying not to cross in the actual legislation, which is to be very prescriptive. It’s deliberately open-ended so the mandate can be defined by the council itself.
Senator Greenwood: I’ll follow up on that; you took the words right out of my mouth here.
Thank you, minister, for coming this evening, and thank you to your colleagues as well. It’s an evening.
My question was very similar to Senator Patterson’s, but I’ll just ask one other little piece of it. I understand — and correct me if I’m wrong — that you are open to amendments on the whole notion of duty to consult, or that concept. Would you be open to an amendment that would make clear that the national council’s work vis-à-vis the government does not constitute consultation with respect to the duty to consult? That is just to be really explicit in the bill itself — not prescriptive, as you were saying, but just to clarify and be explicit for people who would read that so it’s very clear. That is really important. Certainly, I reiterate what Nathan Obed said around the Inuit-Crown partnership committee, and the tables that you spoke of are so very important.
I’ll get to my question now. My question is around funding. You spoke of this already. Many witnesses who appeared here before our committee were critical of the funding mechanism. I know $125 million is substantial. There have been bigger funds, for sure. Call to Action 54 calls upon the government to provide multi-year funding for the national council for truth and reconciliation to ensure it has the financial, human and technical resources required to conduct its work. Would you consider an amendment to ensure that there is annual funding? You said there would be funding should the council need it, but really, when you think about the magnitude of the work in every sector, every discipline, every nation and every settlement, $125 million is not a lot of money. Would you consider an amendment that would look at annual funding in addition to, or $125 million and then consider annual funding thereafter? For this to be successful, I think we need to provide the tools that will allow this council to be successful. Thank you.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator.
I will have to take it away in terms of both of your suggestions. I believe there are two of them.
In terms of funding, the way this bill was developed is unlike most bills that come across your table. It is very much with a focus that this is an independent body. If you look at the Calls to Action 53 to 56, there is a need for independence that is devoid of economic realities sometimes of the government that exists at the time, whether it is a government that supports this or not. I think there are a number of reasons why the TRC called for an independent body. For us to then have an endowment and ongoing annual funding, it reimposes that level of attachment that I’m not sure we want to go to.
If you say, “Look, the money is not enough; there is a need for more,” I would say you’re probably right, and we will definitely be open to that, but if you’re saying this is fine but let’s do an annual, that is something we really need to think about. That might really change the scope of what we’re trying to do.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you for that, minister. I appreciate it and your openness to consideration.
I know there are mechanisms that exist today where there is annual funding and yet are at arm’s length from government and can actually do really fine work. I know there are examples of that. In your consideration, if you would think about that as well, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator.
Senator Hartling: Thank you, minister and your team, for being here tonight. This is a very interesting bill, and I think everybody is awaiting the outcome.
My question is on outcomes. If Bill C-29 is passed, how would it contribute to reconciliation, and how will success be measured? For example, how might Indigenous people be involved in data collection to support perhaps an annual report?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator.
There are three different elements to the reporting, but before that, maybe we can just talk about the research mandate. This council has a mandate to undertake interviews and primary, empirical or secondary research from available sources. There’s also a component where we will be able to enter into a data‑sharing agreement with the council. That’s the first element, and I think that is really the heart and soul, in my opinion, of the work that they’re going to do.
From a government perspective, there’s an onus on the minister to provide information, particularly focusing on the socio-economic gaps, whether it’s educational attainment or a number of matrices that are outlined in the bill. I don’t want to go into each one of them, but essentially, it covers the systemic gaps that we see in Canada between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It is just a measure to see how we’re progressing. This is where very specific measurement tools will say that over the last five years, there’s been a marked improvement, and over the last ten years, we may not have had improvement. There are measures on the impact of the criminal justice system, on over-incarceration and on issues that I think have been systematically identified as problematic, such as child welfare. That’s where I think you’ll get the solid numbers in terms of how we’re progressing. It forces the government to be able to collect and provide that data.
Then there’s reporting. Ninety days from year end, there’s an onus on the minister to provide information. I think 90 days from there, the report comes out, and thereafter, the Prime Minister will have to respond to it. That is the process. In each one, I believe there will be a year-over-year assessment. While the council itself may not provide that year-over-year information, the annual reports and the responses from government will definitely speak to how well we’re progressing.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for being here.
Following a bit on Senator Greenwood and Senator Patterson, I’d like to understand how the endowment would work so I can hopefully understand why you went in that direction. I’ll use the Law Commission of Canada as an example. It’s funded by the government, but it definitely sees itself as independent from the government in the work that it does. I’m trying to understand how an endowment would work in keeping that distance that you seem to think is important.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Prior to me running for office, senator, I was one of the people who were frustrated that the Law Commission was not funded. In fact, it wasn’t funded for many years because a particular government chose that route. As a government, we’ve chosen to fund it and we are funding it.
I think the contrast is stark. If we look at an endowment, it’s a one-time $125 million that will be going to the council for them to — maybe Mary can jump in on the logistics of it. The way I would envision this is it will go into a trust fund or into some form of annuity type of instrument that will guarantee an amount in perpetuity. There are ways that it doesn’t have to be perpetual but for a 20-year period or 30-year period. The government actually does not have a day-to-day say in it. It is preset and guaranteed. I think that’s the difference.
The Law Commission is probably the best example where we’ve seen governments have actually said, “No, we’re not going to fund this.” The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is another example. Again, there’s no endowment there, and for a number of years, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation did not operate.
It’s a model that’s rarely used because the upfront cost is very high. It’s like the difference between buying a house with a cash payment or with a mortgage or leasing a house, which means that you’ll have to pay rent forever, whereas buying it up front is I think what we’re doing here.
Senator Boniface: Your assumption would be that they will draw on it as they need, and at least in some ways it gives them a longer stretch of time. I sat on the Law Commission for five years, so I’m familiar with what went up and down. I guess the question I’m asking is whether the main purpose of the endowment is to ensure that it continues for a lengthy period of time that allows reconciliation to be able to reach its success in Canada.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Yes.
Mary-Luisa Kapelus, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: If I could add to that, there was also an initial $1.5 million for operations. When the transitional committee met, that was part of the thinking, exactly what the minister is suggesting, that this would be something that they could have while they developed their work plan. They scope out the amount of work and then develop a more fulsome costing of what they anticipate.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much.
Senator McCallum: Welcome to the Senate. Thank you for the work that you did with the search in the landfill in Winnipeg. It’s such a good day for that.
I wanted to go back to the progress that needs to be measured and the existing data that we have. The existing data that the committee will be measuring is actually consequences of colonialism. When you look at over-incarceration, the level of suicide, children’s health and diabetes, those are measures of the processes, policies and legislation that made our environment and Indigenous people vulnerable. It’s the system that’s broken, not us. That’s what this committee will be measuring.
One of the things that I think we haven’t talked about is genocide and how that impedes even understanding residential schools but also how it affected us as children and people. I asked one of the medical doctors, and she said it will take between five and ten years to get the data that’s going to monitor us, not the broken system.
When you look at over-incarceration, what will they do with that data? What you’re measuring is the broken system. How will that help with reconciliation?
Mr. Anandasangaree: If we go through 16.1 in the annual reports, it outlines, as you mentioned, the different particularly social and economic disparities and real impacts of colonialism. Incarceration is one, child welfare is another, and health outcomes and suicides. There is a range of issues that we know about, and from a government perspective, it’s what we call closing the gaps that we need to close so that any Indigenous and non-Indigenous person can essentially have the same outcomes in health, child welfare and so on.
Those are quite startling if you look at them in isolation. If you look at the reports from the Correctional Investigator on an annual basis — I often look at the reports they put out — the outcomes are quite startling. We put forward Bill C-5, a bill to address issues of systemic discrimination within the criminal justice system and overincarceration of particularly Indigenous and Black Canadians. We need to measure that, senator. We need a way to measure it so that if the numbers in three years or five years from now haven’t changed, we can then assess and reassess if that legislation is impactful or not or if there are other issues that need to go into changing the system. Fundamentally, if we’re not measuring it, then we’re not actually able to see if we’re going forward or backward.
Anecdotally, I think it’s very valid, but empirical data is essential for us. When we talk about systemic racism — an area that I’ve worked on for many years — we always go back to data. We need data collection. We need data to be collected and to be available, and I think that’s what this bill does. In many ways, these metrics will enable us to measure on an ongoing basis what 2023 was like and what 2030 will be like.
Senator McCallum: So you’re saying that we’ll need to look at how the system is correcting itself through the various legislation that you’re passing?
Mr. Anandasangaree: In part. That’s part of it.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Welcome, Mr. Minister. I have a question for you about the mission of this organization, this council. Here’s what I see in clause 6 of Bill C-29:
[English]
The purpose of the Council is to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
[Translation]
The French version actually says: “Le Conseil a pour mission de faire progresser la réconciliation avec les peuples autochtones.”
I don’t think that conveys the same idea by describing the purpose of establishing the council; that’s its overall mandate. I actually think its mission is to promote reconciliation, but it’s not responsible for advancing reconciliation. Plus, according to the preamble, it’s the government that’s responsible for advancing reconciliation.
I would encourage the people in your department to take a closer look at this to make sure this council isn’t being given a mandate it shouldn’t have or one that’s broader than what it’s being asked to do and that would make it accountable to the general public and indigenous peoples too.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator.
[English]
I want to ask a clarification from you — my French is not that strong — to discern if there is a difference in the language. Are you suggesting that there is a linguistic difference between the English and the French versions? If so, it’s something that we can definitely correct, and I think our legislative drafters are pretty strong in that. Maybe you can clarify.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I think the words used in a personal conversation are less important than those used in legislation. In this case, if lawmakers really want to define the council’s mission, they should make sure that although they say, “to advance reconciliation,” what’s really meant is promoting reconciliation, not a responsibility to advance reconciliation, because that is the government’s job according to the preamble.
[English]
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you.
I wonder if our counsel would like to respond.
Seetal Sunga, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: I appreciate the comment in terms of the translation, and we can definitely assist our colleagues in engaging our jurilinguists to re-examine the issue.
Senator D. Patterson: To go back to Mr. Obed’s concerns expressed to the committee, he was concerned that “limited access to information from the government” would “hinder the ability of the council to carry out its intended functions effectively.”He also said that there are other mechanisms for accountability that Inuit are pushing for, as you no doubt know, such as the Indigenous human rights tribunal.
I’d just like to ask you a bit more about clause 16(1) of the bill that you’ve referred to, and I’m wondering if you could answer a few questions.
How will the government ensure access to relevant information? What steps could be taken to ensure the council has timely access to the information it needs to fulfill its mandate? I guess I’m asking you what types of information you would see being shared by the Government of Canada. There’s talk of developing a protocol. Let’s consider the fact that there may be disputes about what’s shared and how much is shared. Should the protocol include dispute resolution mechanisms? A few questions there, please.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I’m going to answer as much as of it as I can.
This report is to be submitted to Parliament, to both the House of Commons as well as the Senate. We’re aware of the number of different independent bodies that have annual reports to our respective institutions. When there are gaps in information or there are gaps or frustrations with governments, it’s often reflected in the reports themselves, and I think that’s one of the accountability measures that is essentially built in.
The way I read this, there is an obligation on the part of the minister — so myself or anyone in this role — to provide the specific information as outlined in 16(a) through (g). They have to be reported within 90 days from the end of the financial year, which presumably is March 31. The council may be different, but it will be an onus for that reporting to take place. Obviously, when they file the report or table the report to Parliament — to both the Senate as well as the House — there’s a need for a response from the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister will provide an all-of-government response.
You did allude to a need to have an agreement on data sharing, and I think that is something the council and the government will do once it’s established. The accountability measures, I think, are built in, and anything that is missing and any frustrations that may be experienced, I think, will clearly come out in a report. That often really puts governments in a very awkward position, so governments would be well advised to provide that information proactively.
Ms. Kapelus: The senator raised the question around the type of information. I think that’s a really good question in relation to what type of information, and the bill actually stipulates that it’s the council that will determine the type of information that is required to meet its mandate. As the minister is alluding to, that will be something that we will work with through the information protocol sharing agreement that we will eventually establish. Hopefully, that answers your question, senator.
Senator D. Patterson: Well, clause 16(1) is a little bit general — if not vague — about the development of a protocol.
Minister, you would be aware that the treaty claims researchers and directors are having issues with the sharing of information with your department, and as I understand it, privacy issues are involved. I appreciate the answer. I did ask about whether you had any thoughts about whether there should be a dispute resolution mechanism if there possibly isn’t agreement about information disclosure.
Mr. Anandasangaree: I don’t know if you specifically posed that question, but if you have language on that, we will be able to look at it, senator.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
I am hoping that you will work to make sure the Inuit are not excluded from this council, considering their clear lack of support for the bill. As we move forward and as you consider amendments, I’m sure you would agree that, recognized under the Constitution, it would be very important that they do participate.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I have enormous respect for the work of ITK, and we would definitely engage them on how to engage their support on this.
Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I have a quick question. Are you aware of a similar committee with the Sixties Scoop?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Federally, I’m not 100% sure, senator. I don’t believe I’ve come across that. That doesn’t mean it may or may not exist.
Senator McCallum: There is a committee. Maybe you can check. It has really split the community apart. I work with them, and now they’re in all directions. It would be good to get some lessons learned from that.
Mr. Anandasangaree: There are some that may have been established as a result of settlements that may be independent of the government. This one is unique in that there’s legislation around it. We’ll definitely get back to you. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Anandasangaree, and your staff as well, for joining us this evening. We appreciate you taking the time to share testimony with us.
(The committee adjourned.)