THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I’d 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 people from across Turtle Island.
I’m 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 will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: Judy White, Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good evening, [Innu-Aimun spoken].
Michèle Audette from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaqi.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today we’ll continue the committee study on Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, we have the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree. Welcome, minister. The minister is accompanied by officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Martin Reiher, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister; and Paul Dyck, Federal Negotiations Manager. From the Department of Justice, we have Bruce Hamilton, Legal Counsel; and Tanya Punjabi, Legal Counsel.
Thank you for joining us today. The minister will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Minister Anandasangaree to give his opening remarks.
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Senator Francis. Hello. Sángaay’láa.
Mr. Chair, I’m pleased to be joining you today on the unceded, traditional territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people to speak about the Nang K’uula-Nang K’úulaas Recognition Agreement and the legislation that has been developed to implement this agreement.
Getting to this step has been a product of years of intergovernmental cooperation between the Haida Nation, British Columbia, and Canada. I want to thank all of those who have walked before me and those who have been working on this for decades, and I want to particularly thank Gaagwiis, Jason Alsop, who you heard from yesterday, and the Honourable Murray Rankin, the minister responsible in British Columbia, as well as the officials who are here today to support me in this deliberation.
This is about self-determination for the Haida people. Together with the guidance of landmark documents, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the former approach of making decisions on behalf of Indigenous peoples has shifted dramatically and, I’m glad to say, irrevocably, to an approach centred on supporting the aspirations of Indigenous people and communities towards Indigenous self‑determination. Since 2015, our government has been a partner in this journey.
If this bill is passed by Parliament, it will solidify that both Canada and the Province of British Columbia legally recognize the Haida Nation as a holder of inherent rights of governance and self-determination, and that the Council of the Haida Nation is authorized to exercise and make decisions regarding those rights. It will help us work nation to nation by confirming that the Council of the Haida Nation has the ability to act as a distinct legal entity with the capacities of a natural person, similar to other governments in Canada. Haida have always claimed and known the right to govern themselves. Now, the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia recognize that as well.
[Translation]
The Haida people have always affirmed their right to self-governance, as is their right. Today, our government must recognize that, too.
[English]
This recognition will be the foundation for future reconciliation agreements about Haida governance and jurisdiction and the relationship of laws, jurisdictions and management within Haida Gwaii. This federal government will be a partner in the full implementation of the Haida rights, and we are working toward presenting an agreement on title in an upcoming parliamentary session.
I want to talk briefly about the journey to get here. Fifty years ago, the Council of the Haida Nation was formed. As President Gaagwiis said yesterday, it was formed “in this pursuit for our territory and to look after it.” To advance this pursuit, in spring 2023, the Haida Nation and British Columbia signed the Recognition Agreement and passed legislation with the expectation that federal enabling legislation would follow. In July of last year, Canada joined its partners in signing the agreement. Mr. Chair, the next step for Canada is to pass the bill before us today to bring the agreement into full effect.
[Translation]
It demonstrated our commitment to support self-determination, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
[English]
It is through forward-looking legislation such as this that historic change is made and our country becomes stronger as colonial structures are torn down and power is more equitably shared. Self-governance helps our federalism evolve, strengthening it so that it is based on fairness and equality rather than on paternalism. When we recognize these inherent rights, that’s when we can move forward on a path toward reconciliation.
I owe tremendous thanks to all of you, but more importantly Senator Greenwood for sponsoring this important legislation from her home province.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to speak about the bill. I look forward to your questions and comments. I want to thank you. Háw’aa.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Anandasangaree.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you all for being here. Minister, it is always good to see you here at our committee.
I asked a question to our witness yesterday. I want to understand a little bit more about the Changing Tide framework. How does this bill fit into it? My question to the witness had been to ask if, between this legislation and other agreements, all the priorities of the Changing Tide framework had been met. Of course, he gave a hard “no.” I’m just trying to understand. Were they supposed to have been met before this bill happened? Where does this bill fit into the considerations?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator Sorensen.
I was anticipating this question. I do agree with the president on his comments yesterday, but let me reframe it from the perspective of Canada.
The legislation before us today — Bill S-16 — is essentially a governance recognition legislation. It recognizes the Council of the Haida Nation as the government of the Haida people. There are many steps that need to come forward. This is an incremental process, one that is very much led by the Haida people. The legislation was co-developed as presented today with the anticipation that other agreements will follow. There are a number of steps that are critical.
I think there are two that are currently in active negotiations. I alluded to one of them, which is on title. We look forward to bringing it back to the House once that’s concluded. As you know, the Province of British Columbia is, in fact, signing an agreement on title this Sunday, and we’ll be introducing legislation forthwith. We’re a little bit behind on this. We have a number of complex issues that we are working through, including lands that are part of the parks system, which is probably one of the easier titles. There are also Department of National Defence lands, lands associated with Transport Canada and others. We’re working through the complex web of the federal structure, but we are very hopeful, and we expect title to be one of the next steps.
Taxation is the other one that we’re —
Senator Sorensen: So those were elements that were in the Changing Tide framework, and they’re complex, so it’s more important to get this done because these other issues are complicated.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Exactly. I think the approach we’ve taken on this is incremental. Look, it’s taken 50 years to get here. I do say that with a bit of trepidation, but it is very much led by — we have great alignment with the Province of British Columbia, the federal government and the Haida Nation. We’re very much guided by the wishes of the Council of the Haida Nation, who have helped us co-develop this bill. They’re very satisfied that this needs to go forward as a first step, because this clears the way for other processes to be undertaken.
Senator Sorensen: Just as another comment, I did mention as well that I think the model that’s being used in Haida Gwaii with Parks Canada will be a model for co-management, which is a big conversation in Parks. I think it’s sort of the poster child model of what it can look like.
Senator White: Thank you, minister.
I have to say at the outset that I’m really pleased with this piece of legislation. I think anytime First Nations determine their own destination, it’s a win for them, obviously, and a win for Canada. I’m very pleased.
The follow-up from Senator Sorensen relates to the framework for the reconciliation, Changing Tides. There was a closure of the sea cucumber fisheries. Until there’s a management plan developed, it will remain closed. Then, I look to the east, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, is still dropping off people who have fished for elvers, with no boots or phones. I guess I’m looking for some comfort or assurance that when we develop this plan, either DFO is going to know how to work with Indigenous people or the Haida Nation will have autonomy over how to get this done.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator White. It’s a very important question, and a very live one.
First, let me just say that what happened in Nova Scotia is deeply troubling. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with some of the chiefs from the region. It is mystifying to me that, in 2024, we can have incidents such as this. I recognize there’s an investigation taking place with respect to the two individuals, but at the same time, I think there’s a need for transparency, accountability and assurance that everyone will be treated fairly by the law. I’m very troubled by it. As someone who grew up in Scarborough, I’ve had my share of experiences with law enforcement. As a racialized person, it hasn’t always been pretty, so I do recognize the challenges. I also recognize that there’s a need for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to make sure there are accountability processes that are independent and that really speak to getting the confidence of the Mi’kmaq of the region.
With respect to what’s happening in Haida Gwaii, I don’t believe the discussions with DFO are at an advanced stage right now, but it is one of those elements that will be forthcoming. There are a number of agreements that will continue to be negotiated, including fisheries, title, taxation and laws. There are conversations about how local traditions can be incorporated. That’s something that’s very much part of the mandate of Minister Virani. They are all exciting but also time-consuming conversations. After 50 years, I think the recognition of government is a very important starting point — one that we can build on in the years and months to come.
Senator White: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you for coming.
I’ll try to say this in English because I know some of our sisters might be listening to this conversation and questions and answers.
I was in Terrace last February and met some matriarchs from Haida Nation. They’re very concerned about this process. Our due diligence is to make sure that we provide every space and that we can listen as much as we can before we make decisions. It seems like they’ll have to write a written statement. It’s hard to ask people whose voices should have been here and who don’t have expertise to write something with lawyers or consultants.
Minister, I know you’re coming from a good place, but knowing that, my question to you is this: how can you reassure me and all the women in the process, like here with the Haida Nation? It belongs, yes, to the council — I understand that — but there are voices that are lacking, are not involved or not aware of the process. How can you as the minister — and Canada — make sure that we support them within themselves so they can get involved with the Haida Nation?
When my nation gets there, I’ll ask the same question.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I look forward to having the conversation about your nation coming to this table at some point sooner than later.
With respect to the matriarchs, the governance agreement that we’ve undertaken with the Council of the Haida Nation really does recognize the Council of the Haida Nation as the government of its people. I’ve had a number of meetings. I was in British Columbia where I and Minister Rankin met with the councillors. I believe many of the councillors were there. I met with the hereditary chiefs, and a number of them were present. In fact, I met two of them here in Ottawa a while ago.
Like any process, none of it is perfect, but I’m also cognizant that I’m representing the Crown. In this case, I do think the Haida people, if there are disagreements or issues, will need to work this out. They are a very sophisticated entity, in my opinion, and have a long history and track record of succession and cooperation with the hereditary structures, as well as the two Indian Act bands that are part of that government. I do fundamentally believe that it is an important question and one we should ask, but it’s one that should be resolved by the government itself. Our role in a situation like this is to see what our obligations are in terms of ensuring that we bring forward the legislation and that it is something that’s co-developed, in line with principles such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to bring it forward toward government recognition. There are many other conversations that will continue to take place, and I, for one, will undertake when I hope to go to Haida — and I hope you will be there as well, and we can have that conversation with the matriarchs, but I do believe that many of these issues need to be resolved by the nation itself.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Martin: Minister, thank you for being here with us this evening.
As we have heard, this has been quite a long process for the Haida Nation. I’m aware that B.C. passed its enabling legislation last year, in May. It took almost a year for your government to introduce this bill, which was the last step needed. Would you shed light on the process and why it took as long as it did? I know it still has to go to the House, and here we are, but I’m just curious about the timing of everything.
Mr. Anandasangaree: I’ll note that I was appointed on July 26 and that the government’s agreement was signed on July 18. We have a number of internal processes that we have to go through, including developing memoranda to cabinet and having to present it to a cabinet committee and then to cabinet. We also have to ensure that it goes through our deputy minister’s committee. There are a number of steps we have to take that are different from the province. We also have a bicameral system, as all of you in the upper house are aware. It has to go through that two-part legislative process. In federal terms, I think we’ve moved in what I think can be described as lightning speed. Feel free to disagree, Martin, but we have moved expeditiously on this. Of course, Senator Martin, nothing would please me more if we could move faster on these because these things have been in the works for many years, but I do believe we have made best efforts. We have continuously engaged with the Haida Nation and council members to get here. With all of your hard work, we can get this through the Senate and then to the House for what I believe should be fast processing.
Senator Martin: My second question is regarding clause 7 of the bill, which allows the Governor-in-Council to make any orders and regulations that are necessary for the purpose of the act. Could you elaborate on what orders and regulations could fall under that clause? Is there an obligation to consult if additional orders and regulations are made?
Mr. Anandasangaree: I’m actually going to ask Martin to respond to that question. It’s a very technical question, and I think he can give you a better answer.
Martin Reiher, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, minister.
Senator, clause 7 is one that we find in all bills to ensure that proper implementation can occur. I would actually turn to my colleague at the Department of Justice to indicate to us whether there is any that have been contemplated to date. As far as I know, I’m not aware of any specific one that we already know would be required under this provision. Perhaps Ms. Punjabi could let us know whether that has been identified already.
Tanya Punjabi, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: Thank you.
I can confirm that this is, again, sort of typical clause that one might find that allows the act to have some flexibility in the future in the event that orders or regulations are required. At the moment, there are no specific orders or regulations that have been contemplated that would be needed to bring the bill into effect or to do the work that’s expected by the bill.
Mr. Anandasangaree: We’re in an era where we’re implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so I would anticipate any type of regulation or anything that is contemplated here will be in consultation with Indigenous peoples, particularly with the Council of the Haida Nation. Of course, like any other situation, if other nations are impacted, there would be a duty to consult them as well. I can confirm that my expectation is that any further regulations, or any regulations contemplated, will be scrutinized and will be in line with the UNDRIP principles.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being with us, minister and other witnesses. I have two quick questions.
First, you met with the President of the Council of the Haida Nation yesterday after we met with him. Were any issues raised that you can share with us? That’s the first question.
The second question is really about timeline and next steps. I don’t think we’re going to be holding this bill up here, and I know it then has to be passed in the other place, as we call it. Once that’s done, you mentioned title. You mentioned a fisheries agreement. You mentioned taxation, laws, et cetera. What is the sequence, and how long are we expecting for those next steps?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator Coyle, for that.
We basically spoke about two issues yesterday, or two days ago. The timeline is a blur. Our conversation really focused on how the bill is progressing. They have been meeting with a number of senators as well as parliamentarians. They are meeting with all the opposition critics and others who have a direct interest in the bill or who will be able to scrutinize the bill at some point. They spoke about the work that they did, but they also spoke about the title and the need for us to move forward on title. It’s a commitment I have made a number of times, and I reaffirmed that we will be working diligently and expeditiously to ensure that we are able to have clarity on what the title transfer will be and will look like.
In terms of title, I anticipate that later in the year we will have something on paper that can either be a letter of intent or an MOU as a starting point. There are other pieces to title that may not get clarity. There are pieces around some contaminated land, I think is one of them, and we always have a process for that to ensure that it’s clean. That’s the easier piece. The taxation piece will come relatively soon. In terms of fisheries, I’m not sure where we’re at, but fisheries usually takes the longest in terms of engagement and resolution.
When we look at legal systems, for example, legal traditions, incorporating Haida legal traditions within a framework within B.C. and Canada will require work and legislative changes. As you’ll recall, with the Whitecap Dakota legislation we did last year, there were amendments to the provincial offences act in Saskatchewan that enabled some of the legal aspects of that treaty to be implemented. I do think some steps are required.
It’s hard to give a timeline, but I believe that there is momentum here, and with the Province of British Columbia, we have really good alignment with both Minister Rankin and Premier Eby. There is definitely a conscious effort that reconciliation requires self-determination and self-government, and it is a fundamental tenet for both governments to move on this. We can no longer pretend that the Indian Act is sufficient. We can no longer continue to rely on that as the legal basis of the relationship. We need to go towards a true nation-to-nation relationship, and that requires us to do the hard work and do it in a way that is respectful, that is co-developed and that ensures full self-determination.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, minister, for being here, and the other witnesses as well.
My apologies for coming in late — I was just coming out of another meeting — so if this has already been asked and answered, just disregard it. Throughout your testimony, from what I picked up, you reference the fact that this particular legislation was co-developed. I’m quite curious about what policies or key features you would consider to be part of that co-development. Thank you.
Mr. Anandasangaree: The Westminster system that we’re in confines us in terms of what kind of engagement and discussions we can have about a proposed legislation. In fact, we cannot even show senators an advance copy and ask for your opinion. There is an element of discretion that’s there from the outset that disables us from having frank and fair conversations about the text. We can talk about the principles and elements of it, but we can’t talk about the actual full text.
Co-development, in many ways, is going through the steps of what is important, what are the elements that we need and what are the steps that we need to put into the legislation, but then also have a review process and an engagement with that. I believe we sign confidentiality agreements before the texts are signed or reviewed. That is the process by which co-development takes place, so there is an actual, ongoing conversation on its different formations. A bill will go through a number of different drafts from start to finish in terms of language and the paragraphs. Now, we won’t agree on everything, but I think the substance of it is something that both the Government of Canada and the Council of the Haida Nation would have agreed to.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for providing that response. To get into that a bit, from those features you just mentioned, but I’m thinking, more or less, also in practice, would you say there is a specific policy for co-development, or do you tend to approach that on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Anandasangaree: We are in the process of properly establishing protocols around it. We do have and use co‑development principles. I was part of one of the first legislations that was co-developed, which was the Indigenous Languages Act, Bill C-91, and then Bill C-92 came right after, which is the child welfare. The water legislation that’s before the house has been co-developed. We have learned every step of the way.
This is unique because there is only one partner that is the subject of the co-development and it’s a two-way partnership, but when we are broadly talking about water, for example, there are dozens and dozens of partners or those we work with. We have the national Indigenous organizations, and we have particular communities with a very strong history of water protection. There are layers of discussions and consultations that take place.
It is an evolutionary process, and I don’t think we have perfected it. Senator, I will be the first to admit that I think on virtually every piece of legislation we put forward, we are always asked if we have done enough consultation, and generally speaking, we make best efforts. We have made significant strides, but we’re constantly improving how that works. The broader the set of accepted principles we can have, the better. It’s going to evolve and get better as time progresses.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: I think you just took my question, but I’ll ask it anyways.
Just to clarify, first of all, I think the Changing Tide Framework for Reconciliation articulates a number of priorities that the Haida Nation has. They talk about fisheries and lands and all of that, so I think that’s articulated. The recognition agreement is the first that enables the conversations, and then there can be independent agreements on the priorities, i.e. fisheries, taxation and those sorts of things that you articulated. I’m just ensuring I am clear about this.
My question follows on yours. It’s a tripartite strategy. It’s B.C., Canada and the Haida Nation. This is a process question. I’m probably getting into the weeds here, but it’s good to understand this. I would assume that there are committees set up for each of these agreements and that you have regular meetings and conversations. It’s relational, and you have talked about that. You have talked about relationships, and you’re doing relational work to achieve each of these agreements. That’s a lot of time for a lot of people. Can you just talk a little bit about what that looks like? I think it builds on your question, Senator Prosper, of what that looked like.
I have a second question when you are done. Thank you.
Mr. Anandasangaree: I’m going to ask Paul to weigh in a little bit, but let me offer my reflections on this.
One of the most inspiring things for me and, probably, one of the more difficult things for me is that we have a number of advanced treaties, especially in British Columbia, but not just in B.C. As we get closer and as we are at the stage of signing, we are talking to people who are in their sixties and seventies and eighties. They are people who have spent a lifetime on this. For me, I look at that, and I’m awed by the enormous commitment to getting these treaties through, because it is a transformational element for their nation and for Canada. The frustrating part is that it’s taking so long. Many of these conversations take so long to get to.
I believe time has allowed us to also advance some of the treaty discussions. For what was probably a modern treaty for Tsawwassen First Nation when we signed it, there are other things that have developed, like extinguishment and so on, that we have moved away from, which allows us to further entrench better principles into the treaty-making process.
I do want to offer that reflection, because with the Haida Nation, it’s a 50-year journey — 20 years for this particular set of negotiations. It is definitely a long journey for them.
I want to ask Paul, who is our negotiator at the table, if he can give us a bit of insight into how many tables we have and how those discussions have been progressing over the years.
Paul Dyck, Federal Negotiations Manager, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, minister, and thank you, senator.
I would just echo the reflection that it is very complex and demanding work, and there is a lot of work to be done. I would maybe start by pointing to that being foundational to the GayGahlda Changing Tide Framework for Reconciliation in that the parties intended to approach those negotiations in an incremental way, which, in part, allows us to build on agreements over time but also make timely progress on matters that are important to the Haida Nation and to the other parties. The recognition agreement is the first tripartite agreement we have been able to reach together through this process, but we have also reached other bilateral agreements that have supported progress along the way. It is allowing us to do that together in a way that is driven towards progress incrementally over time.
We do have a main table for the negotiations that involves teams for all three parties. Depending on the subject matters, there are others we need to bring in to support discussions and negotiations around specific subjects. Depending on what would be required for Canada, we would bring in different federal partners to help us advance progress, whether that be related to protected area issues or taxation or some of the other priorities that we have touched on. It’s requiring a lot of collective heavy lifting, but that’s really built into the framework that we have used to create a foundation for the process.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
Senator McNair: Minister, thank you for being here tonight, and your officials. Senate committees are always pleased to see ministers responsible for areas appearing before us and giving testimony.
There has been a common theme asked tonight about timeline. You have said a couple of times that it’s been 50 years, essentially, to get to where we are today. I think everyone in the room is of the view that the governments are going in the right direction now, and, hopefully, things will move faster. Do you have any optimistic time frame on how long it will take to complete the negotiation process? I know that’s a hypothetical.
Mr. Anandasangaree: With the era we are in, I think negotiations will be ongoing, even when we have resolution, because these are evolutionary documents, evolutionary agreements, ones that are not going to be static and where rights are not extinguished, because these are, in many ways, living documents.
The substantive issues will take — I can’t give you a timeline, senator; I wish I could — but let’s say on title, I think we can get part way on some title issues. On taxation, I think we can probably have a somewhat conclusive resolution once the issues are sorted out, and I think that won’t take an enormous amount of time. On issues like fisheries, it may take a little bit of time.
Again, the way we’re approaching reconciliation right now is we look at this as evolutionary. We may sign a document today, and in five years, other principles may come in that where we have evolved as a government, as a country and in the thinking on what reconciliation looks like collectively with Indigenous people. Some of those principles could then be incorporated into these documents. I do think that where a nation-to-nation relationship exists, it is one that is constantly going to keep improving. I think the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, may be a good example of one where we have a 5‑year review of our agreement. We have some agreements where we have 10-year reviews or 15-year reviews. One of the exciting things is that we’re not having full and final release of everything. We are having ongoing discussions where we’re trying to move the needle every step of the way.
Senator Greenwood: Minister, I have heard you speak of this, so I just want to ensure that this occurs. Will you commit to ensuring that the bill, once it leaves us, and gets to the House of Commons will be a priority and will get the attention it needs to get passed?
Senator Coyle: Good question.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Absolutely, senator. I really want to get this done. We want to get Bill C-29 done. The last time I was here, it was on Bill C-29. We are this close.
I think the challenge is that Parliament is working slower than it should. I don’t think issues around reconciliation should be politicized. I fundamentally believe that if, as a country, we are to move forward, every party needs to take an approach of conciliation and working together in collaboration. I think we will have agreement from three parties towards moving this forward expeditiously. I’m hopeful that we will have support of the Conservatives as well, but it’s not in my hands. I’m optimistic, and I generally work very collaboratively with everyone and try to ensure that we depoliticize fundamental issues such as this that are going to change the nature and direction of our country.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
Senator Audette: Again, knowing that the relationship is with the government or the nation, we all have a responsibility, knowing that the Indian Act totally — beep — I won’t say it — the role between men and women.
Not in this bill, but in many bills that go to self-government and for our nation — I’m in favour of that and very hopeful that we get there — how can we provide projects or programs or supports for women? They don’t have funding. The nation or my community won’t support another voice that is not in agreement. Through democracy, we can enhance that or make it better and provide support for that space. They don’t have that support. Can we have that conversation or commitment that we can do something to reassure the Indigenous voices that are not involved in our communities?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. That’s a very important question, and I think it’s a much broader question than just to this bill.
On the work that I’ve been doing, it’s very important that we have everyone’s voices, but particularly those of women. In many cases, we do ensure that there’s space available for women’s organizations. You will know that when we talk about space, there are different women’s organizations that are attached to each nation. Pauktuutit is an example of one voice, and there are many others. As with the work I do around missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit individuals, this is one of the things I’m hearing loud and clear. I was in northern British Columbia, in Terrace — I was on the Highway of Tears — and I met with Gladys and people like that, and those voices really need to be projected on the national stage because they’re incredible people who have done so much work and have an incredible voice.
We try to do that as much as we can, but I know we can do better. I would love to hear ideas, and I think that there are things we can do. I would love to collaborate to see how we can expand that. In the way we engage right now, there are probably some limitations. There’s language and there’s distance. When I go to communities, I always make sure we find women’s voices to engage. I would look to you, senator, with your wealth of knowledge and expertise, to support us in that work. If there are ideas that we can pursue, I know the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth of Canada is very keen as well, so we can work together with Minister Ien on this.
The Chair: That brings me to the end of my list. Are there any further questions from senators?
The time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank the minister and the officials for joining us this evening.
Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, I would like to remind senators of a few points.
The departmental officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and from Justice Canada have stayed on with us and will be available to answer any technical questions senators may have.
If at any point a senator is not clear about where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we all have the same understanding.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that, in committee, the proper process is to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
With that, before we start, are there any questions? Seeing none, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If I’m going too fast, let me know.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No? Okay. Good. Just had to ask.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. That brings us to the end of our meeting today, short and sweet.
(The committee adjourned.)