THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 16, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021 by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.
Senator David Arnot (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy 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 First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan. I’m the Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and provinces.
Senator McNair: Good morning. I’m John McNair from the province of New Brunswick. Nice to meet you.
Senator Hartling: I’m Nancy Hartling from Mi’kma’ki and New Brunswick also. Nice to see you.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: [Indigenous language spoken]. My name is Judy. I’m from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Coyle: I’m Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today, we will continue our new study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, by Canada, First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.
I’d now like to introduce our witnesses today. From the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Natan Obed, President, and Will David, Director of Legal Affairs.
From the Assembly of First Nations, we have Terry Teegee, Regional Chief, British Columbia, and Lara Koerner-Yeo, Associate, JFK Law LLP.
Thank you, witnesses, for joining us today. I would ask the witnesses to make remarks for approximately five minutes to be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators.
I will now invite President Obed to make his opening statements. Thank you.
Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and [Indigenous language spoken]. Good morning, everyone. It’s always great to be here in the Senate with you all, especially when we’re talking about such an important issue as United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, implementation in this country.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, welcomed passage of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, or UNDA, as a positive example of federal legislation co-developed with Inuit and other Indigenous peoples. Beginning with the publication of our position paper entitled Implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada in 2017, we called on the federal government to implement the rights affirmed by the UN declaration through federal legislation.
The United Nations declaration outlines the fundamental human rights of Inuit as opposed to the public policy of the government. Far too often, Inuit have experienced successive federal governments treating Inuit human rights and treaty rights as discretionary policy objectives rather than binding legal obligations. This is why ITK advanced provisions during the development of the act that would have significantly altered its scope by establishing an Indigenous human rights commission and tribunal. While we were unsuccessful in this effort, the national action plan and the act itself commit to some form of follow-up work relating to treating Indigenous rights as legal rights.
As Inuit feared, we have experienced some serious challenges in the implementation of the act. Most of these challenges are tied to internal processes of government as well as the discretionary nature of the policy development process itself. For example, the process for developing the action plan that followed the passing of the act was a struggle, because each of the federal departments was left to determine which action plan measure proposals it was willing to respond to and, in many cases, defined the language of the final measures themselves.
Nearly three years after the act received Royal Assent, we are alarmed by the fundamental challenges that continue to hamper implementation of the act and its associated action plan. For example, we are particularly concerned that the term “consultation and cooperation” has never been defined. It seems that Inuit and the federal government have different understandings of what statutory obligation to consult and cooperate actually means.
This results in some federal departments unilaterally applying the term to initiatives that, from our perspective, are no different than any other form of federal engagement. One valuable benefit of a tribunal would be to provide clarity on the meaning of the term “consult and cooperate” for all parties.
Inuit are particularly concerned with how section 5 of the act is being interpreted by federal departments. Section 5 obligates the federal government to take all measures necessary, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN declaration.
ITK sought to include action plan measures that align with and serve to implement each of the specific rights affirmed by the UN declaration and which could serve to help implement section 5 of the act in partnership with Inuit. These measures would require substantial changes to the status quo that we believe Parliament contemplated when passing the act. However, the only work that ITK is aware of on section 5 is an internal guidance document instructing federal officials to review new pieces of legislation without actual engagement of Inuit. ITK takes the view that this reflects a diminished interpretation of the consultation and collaboration obligation endorsed by Parliament.
The implementation of the national action plan is currently proceeding in an ad hoc, disorganized manner that largely depends on the personal disposition of individual federal ministers and senior officials. For example, some departments are actively advancing some action plan commitments, but they are few. Most departments insist that they require additional authorities from central agencies to proceed with implementation. The existence of the legislation and the national action plan aren’t enough to implement the rights of Inuit.
For example, the Department of Canadian Heritage has been reluctant to commit to developing repatriation legislation, even though this is one of the most profound and obvious legislative gaps in domestic law when it comes to alignment with the UN declaration. In a similar vein, the Department of Justice has cited the lack of authorities as a barrier to developing a mechanism for assessing alignment with the declaration consistent with section 5.
Despite these challenges, ITK remains optimistic that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, if effectively utilized, can serve as an effective mechanism for implementing our human rights and improving prosperity for our people. For example, we sought to include action plan measures addressing legislative gaps in relation to Indigenous immigration and repatriation, among others, and that we believe would help implement Article 36 and Article 12 of the UN declaration in domestic law.
ITK appreciates that the inclusion of an Inuit-specific section within the national action plan and the existence of measures that respond to Inuit-specific implementation of the declaration are positive steps. The declaration act also has the potential to serve as an international model for other states seeking to implement Indigenous human rights in domestic law. However, the challenges that characterize implementation must be resolved first.
We remain committed to working with other Indigenous peoples and federal partners to determine solutions that address the challenges I have identified today.
Nakummek.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, President Obed.
I will ask Chief Terry Teegee, the Regional Chief from British Columbia representing the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, to make opening comments on behalf of the AFN.
Terry Teegee, Regional Chief, British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, Mr. Chair. [Indigenous language spoken].
First, I want to acknowledge I’m calling from the territory of the Lenape people here in New York. I’m currently attending the Twenty-Third Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
My name is Terry Teegee. I’m the Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, portfolio holder for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Chair of the Chiefs Committee on the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations.
The AFN is a national organization that advocates for First Nations’ inherent treaty and Aboriginal rights, title and jurisdiction. The AFN continues to advocate for the full implementation of the UN declaration in Canada through First Nations-led approaches.
Canada’s action plan to implement the UN declaration act is just that: Canada’s action plan, and we recognize that it has a flawed but promising first step. If implementation is done in partnership with First Nations, it presents a real opportunity to address the historical and ongoing impacts of colonization on First Nations peoples. However, successful implementation requires a complete review and revision of federal practices as they relate to co-development and co-implementation. A framework to support this shift has not yet been observed.
As an example of this, throughout the process of developing the action plan, First Nations raised many concerns about the lack of opportunities to be involved in this work. First Nations were not provided the necessary capacity funding to fully participate in the development of the national action plan, nor was a decision-making body established to permit First Nations oversight over its development. These omissions continue to impact the national action plan’s implementation.
As a result, First Nations-in-Assembly brought forward a number of resolutions, including Resolution 20/2023, which calls on Canada to jointly develop amendments with First Nations for the action plan to address gaps in Canada’s plan. All of this underscores the need to ensure that the action plan is subjected to regular review and revision alongside First Nations to ensure that First Nations priorities and interests drive ongoing development and implementation of the action plan.
The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a critical priority to improve the well-being of First Nations and respect our fundamental rights for the successful implementation of the UNDA. The process must be led by First Nations, ensuring their voices are heard and driving the implementation process. The fulsome participation of First Nations in the co-development and review of legislation and the co-implementation of the UNDA Action Plan is a critical aspect of the international human rights standards of free, prior and informed consent.
Certainly, the lack of government mandates is affecting everything.
The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, or BCAFN, is a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, or FNLC. As part of the FNLC, we have entered into a bilateral memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with the Minister of Justice to begin developing a work plan to support the co‑implementation of the action plan. As we have begun working to implement the UN declaration at this table and others, we are already noticing a gap with the lack of specific mandates from the Government of Canada, a lack of a whole-of-government commitment and framework mandating First Nations co‑implementation of the action plan measures and a lack of commitment to any coordinating efforts to ensure First Nations’ priorities are driving the implementation of the action plan measures.
We know that the national action plan does not outline all the priorities needed to ensure the federal government is fully compliant with the declaration. In some areas where the Government of Canada already has mandates to move forward, concrete information about implementation is difficult to obtain from departments. It is also unclear how departments plan to include First Nations in co‑leading necessary work for how ministries have adapted their engagement principles to better reflect the human rights standards and principles of the UN declaration, including how First Nations’ human rights of free, prior and informed consent will be recognized across ministerial implementation efforts.
In other areas, where the government does not yet have a mandate, discussions seem entirely stalled, and it is not feasible for First Nations communities or organizations to be required to strike multiple and independent tables with each ministry to ensure their voices are driving the implementation process. This severely limits the transformative change that First Nations are looking for through the implementation of the UN declaration.
The implementation of the UN declaration is a moral and legal obligation of Canada. Any process of implementation must itself be consistent with the standards of the UN declaration, which requires front-end capacity investment. Numerous articles of the UN declaration express the positive obligations of Canada to support this process, as do the terms of UNDA and Canada’s Constitution.
With respect to whole-of-government approaches, as we have stressed in previous meetings with the federal government, a potential solution to the current ad hoc and disjointed implementation effort — which has a concerning impact of overwhelming First Nations’ technical capacity, resulting in insufficient engagement and an infringement of our rights to free, prior and informed consent — is the necessary co‑development of a comprehensive whole-of-government approach to UNDA implementation.
Such a framework is essential to the successful implementation of UNDA. Such a framework must guide all federal ministries’ efforts to bring their policies, bylaws and practices in alignment with the United Nations declaration. This framework could take advantage of lessons learned from B.C.’s implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act here in B.C., which is being supported by an independent Declaration Act Secretariat responsible for not only coordinating the government’s implementation efforts across provincial ministries but also educating provincial bureaucrats on the standards of the UN declaration and liaising with First Nations communities and organizations.
Each federal department needs to be coordinated by an independent body co‑governed or advised by Indigenous peoples to work together and coordinate their efforts to ensure the work is moving forward and that we are not creating redundancies or unduly burdening First Nations.
There are 181 action plan measures, or APMs, and almost all departments lead or jointly lead at least one measure that is a priority within the action plan. We must ensure that all departments are working with First Nations to implement UNDA and are taking a whole-of-government and coordinated approach to these efforts.
Certainly, funding and resourcing are a critical part of the implementation. For this work to be done in a way that truly supports First Nations in both the short and long term, adequate funding and resources must be provided directly to First Nations. Without this funding, achieving the human rights standards of free, prior and informed consent is impossible. Repeatedly, we’ve seen inconsistent funding, which results in significant barriers to a meaningful involvement of First Nations in critical initiatives. Working proactively to implement the declaration can provide cost savings. Average annual federal litigation costs against First Nations between 2015 and 2018 were $23.97 million, with this number growing in recent years.
A significant reduction to these annual costs and redirection of those resources could instead go towards negotiation, co‑development and implementation of the UN declaration. This will result in improvements in First Nations’ social determinants of health and well-being, as well as increased investment certainty for economic development.
It is essential that the Government of Canada commit to funding implementation efforts and acts as a true partner in the process of achieving reconciliation. The UN declaration is the framework for reconciliation. We must think carefully about how we can use this declaration to make meaningful change for First Nations across Canada. It is our responsibility to ensure an equitable future for everyone. Thank you, mahsi’cho.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Teegee. We will now move to questions from senators.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. It’s obviously frustrating for us to hear the testimony. I can’t imagine the level of frustration on a day-to-day basis. I will start with a question for President Obed, but I also want to comment to committee again on the comment around consultation.
We don’t seem to know what consultation is supposed to be, either at our level or at this level. I’m not sure what this committee can do about it, but at some point, there has to be a template for what consultation actually means. I’m sure it changes all across the country, depending on the situation.
Again, based on your testimony, I’m not terribly optimistic about the response to my question, but I wanted to ask about the action item related to Inuktitut revitalization, maintenance, protection and promotion which speaks to the need for federal services to be offered in Inuktitut in the Inuit homeland, beginning with Nunavut.
I’m not sure if you have any statistics or data related to federal services in Inuktitut or to what extent the federal departments are currently providing services in Inuktitut. Are there any departments that have made significant progress in that area?
Mr. Obed: Thanks for the question. First, with the term “consultation,” there are these traditional terms that have made their way through Supreme Court rulings that we are comfortable with in some ways, but there are new terms that the federal government is using in policy development and sometimes in its messaging to Canadians, such as “co‑development.” We have worked with the Government of Canada to create co‑development principles.
The implementation of those principles is still an ongoing challenge, but then the term “cooperation” is as well. There are these new, very loaded terms being used that are not clearly defined and have then created some real challenges for us when we’re far apart on our understanding of what cooperation might mean.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Mr. Obed: Regarding Inuktitut, we know that Heritage Canada has done a pilot with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, or NTI, in relation to some level of Inuktitut application in Nunavut specifically. However, we are largely still struggling from the lack of strength within the Indigenous Languages Act. Early on in this government’s mandate, it was deemed a huge step forward for Indigenous languages. Ultimately, we hoped for an Inuit-specific section. We hoped for official language status for Inuktitut in Inuit Nunangat — in the geopolitical homeland of Inuit — and that didn’t come to pass. To this day, the federal government still has no obligation to provide federal services in Inuktitut in our homeland, even if there is an official language status of Inuktitut in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories for our language.
The huge challenge that flows from that is that people can’t rely on, say, health care delivery, or any other federal service, being accessed in our language. This is a language of majority for Inuit Nunangat, especially in Nunavik and Nunavut. In Nunavik, the census data says that almost 100% of the population says they can speak and understand Inuktitut. In Nunavut, the percentage is — I believe — in the high seventies or possibly eighties. The numbers have been shifting a bit. But these are majority populations of Inuit in jurisdictions and then majority linguistically Indigenous language speakers where the federal government has not recognized any obligation to provide services in our language.
Imagine if any other jurisdiction had a people majority of a population speaking a linguistic majority with no federal obligation to provide services in any of the administration that it does in the jurisdiction. It just wouldn’t happen anywhere else in this country.
Senator Sorensen: So this call to action in UNDRIP is basically not even on the table at this point.
Mr. Obed: We have worked with the federal government to cost out what it would take to implement UNDRIP-related rights for Inuit. It came out to — I believe — $1 billion over 10 years. We then put that in a pre-budget submission. We didn’t receive any money. We haven’t received any sort of hope that any of that work we did with the federal government, which took us over a year, will be implemented or funded at all. We have no hopes for that as of today.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
I have another question for Chief Teegee. Again, I want to speak to your testimony on the whole-of-government approach. Again, I hear in all kinds of meetings — with different industries and so on — that, obviously, a whole-of-government approach on the declaration is desperately needed. I don’t work in government. I’m not a minister. I don’t know why bringing ministries together, even in small groups at a time, is so difficult. However, it does seem to be. But I think it’s crucial and that a whole-of-government approach — on this topic specifically — is needed.
The civil and political rights section of the action plan advocates the eventual repeal of the Indian Act as well as co‑development of opt-in alternatives to Indian Act registration and membership. I’m really curious about the Indian Act and what your goals for that would be. Has any progress been made on enabling First Nations to set out their own rules regarding citizenship?
Mr. Teegee: Thank you for that question, senator. Certainly, section 35 of the Indian Act has been of concern for many First Nations in this country for quite some time. However, before we figure out what replaces section 35, there needs to be an actual definition of “co‑development.” Certainly, as my colleague President Obed has said, the whole of government needs to understand what co‑development means and that it’s not mere consultation.
It’s really difficult to understand how government functions, especially with these initiatives that are coming out from different departments. For example, the Canadian Border Services Agency is out engaging in terms of implementation of the United Nations Declaration Act, or UNDA without any partnership with any First Nations. That’s one example of many that are out there in terms of the implementation of UNDA.
Going back to one of your original questions, before you do any replacement or anything else with section 35, there need to be real definitions for what “consultation” and “co‑development” mean in terms of whatever comes after section 35.
Also, in terms of UNDA, there needs to be a clear definition of what “consultation” means, but also what “co‑development means.” A whole-of-government approach is needed because having different departments doing one thing is a very ad hoc implementation of UNDA, and it isn’t suiting First Nations well or helping the situation. This is why we’re calling for more resources for First Nations to engage in terms of the implementation of UNDA.
For example, we have been on this journey for five years in the province of British Columbia in terms of implementing Bill 41, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA. The provincial government has provided $200 million to First Nations to be participants in the actual co‑development of the legislations that are aligning with the declaration itself here in the province of British Columbia. That gives you an idea of how much resourcing is needed, especially in regard to a national discussion of the implementation of UNDA.
Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you, chief.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us in person and on the screen. It’s good to see you again, chief. As my colleague said, it’s disappointing to hear this enlightening testimony, though it’s very helpful and timely to hear what you have to say. As my colleague Senator Sorensen said, what we do with this as a committee other than listen to it is something we will have to deliberate on ourselves — although you might have some suggestions.
Both of you talked about language, which is so key. It’s the essence — what “cooperation,” “consultation” and “co‑development” mean. Years ago, I worked in Indonesia. The government was twisting the word for “participate” in the Indonesian language. They made it into a transitive verb, so people were “participated.” It’s really dangerous to “participate” people — to say that there’s consultation. What we need is meaning and teeth so you can hold on to what that actually means. I’m very interested in what you’ve had to say.
President Obed, you talked about the tribunal perhaps helping with definition. Could you speak a little bit more about that? Then I have some more questions.
Mr. Obed: This comes back to the Government of Canada reversing its position on the United Nations Declaration in New York in 2016. At that time, the minister responsible, former Minister Bennett, talked about Indigenous peoples in Canada now having a full box of rights.
We are not going to be in the courts anymore. We are going to be in full implementation mode of our existing rights.
Immediately, from our perspective, Inuit thought that seemed like a wonderful reality. It isn’t the one we have now. How can we actually move from the reality we have in Canada into this enlightened reality where our rights are implemented? Then there is recourse and remedy for any example of there being a departure from the implementation of our rights. That’s where we came up with the idea of a human rights tribunal that would be independent. We put this position forward to the Government of Canada in 2017. We then had an addendum to that in 2018 or 2019. We were not successful in getting it explicitly stated in the act, but there is a provision that allows for the development of recourse and remedy provisions, and that was based on our advocacy at the Métis National Council. They were also advocating strongly for that.
But as far as how it might positively influence this reality, I’ll turn to Will David for further clarification on the nuts and bolts of it.
Will David, Director of Legal Affairs, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: One of the core visions and concerns that ITK had when the bill was passed in early implementation and even under negotiation was the meaning of some of the terms, and the tendency to consult and cooperate could mean the government understands what Indigenous people have stated as positions and reflect those back and then continues on the status quo path.
It would be extremely helpful just given the fact that ITK has views on consult and cooperate. I’m sure AFN has views on consult and cooperate. The Government of Canada has views to have an independent body to flesh out and provide certainty to all parties as to the base rules of the game, not only on the statute, but also how the declaration applies within the country so we can actually advance work that is impactful to Indigenous peoples and Canadians on all elements within, instead of operating in this space of uncertainty about what it is we are doing and consistently arguing over process, which is not the entirety of where things are right now on declaration implementation, but a large amount of the implementation discourse now is fundamentally about process.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Chief Teegee, if you wouldn’t mind, you have said that Canada’s action plan is just that: Canada’s. I think we are hearing concerns about the ad hoc implementation. I have heard the word “disorganized” used.
You talked about the importance of investing in the capacity of First Nations to meaningfully participate in driving this forward so that it is done in a manner that is consistent with the principle of what UNDRIP actually is. I take that very much to heart.
I am curious to know if you could speak a little further — and you have spoken a fair bit already about this — about having in B.C. this experience base, what with your own province being ahead of the game. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your experience in B.C. that you find positive that could be extrapolated to the federal relationships we are now talking about?
Mr. Teegee: As you well know, there have been many court declarations that came out of British Columbia, including Taku Tlingit; Haida; Sparrow; on June 26, 2014, Tsilhqot’in, the declaration and title; and in 1997, my relatives, Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa, that spoke to Indigenous peoples governing themselves.
The issue is one where, on one matter, that is very positive here in British Columbia, and since we don’t have a tribunal to keep the Province of B.C. accountable, we do have a secretariat within the legislature that is led by our first First Nation Indigenous woman deputy minister who is in many respects having some level of success in terms of keeping the Province of B.C. and their ministries accountable.
Accountability is very important, whether it is a tribunal, as my colleague said, or something similar, such as a secretariat, to make sure many of these laws are aligning with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
British Columbia has been a willing partner in looking at many of these issues, but one of the issues is bureaucracy. The literally hundreds or thousands of bureaucrats that are within the legislature need to know and understand what UNDRIP means to Indigenous peoples. That is really necessary.
We should be doing things more publicly as First Nations, because we ran into an issue recently with the Land Act amendments to recognize First Nations as decision makers on the land. That was a lesson learned. The positive part is that we can come out better prepared in terms of amendments that can be made.
Recently, Land Act titled has been amended to recognize First Nations to hold in fee simple lands as First Nation communities. That is a good, short, small step.
But more recently, in the last week, a big initiative that perhaps the federal government will be looking at is the recognition of Haida title. This is really borne out of the United Nations declaration and the recognition that the Haida have never ceded their territory, they are the rightful owners of their lands in Haida Gwaii and the Province of B.C. finally recognizes that they do have title.
It really comes back to the partnership between the Haida and the provincial government. Further to that, it is part of the implementation of the United Nations declaration with many articles that recognize that First Nations have the ability to govern themselves. Certainly, this move to recognize Haida as the rightful owners in their territory is a positive step. I believe the federal government will be doing the same, hopefully very soon.
One other positive step is the drawing down of jurisdiction on child welfare. In many respects, it is not just Bill C-15. Bill C-92 is recognition that First Nations can take over child welfare in British Columbia, and Bill C-91 provides some funding.
You talked about languages. There are over 60 Indigenous languages in First Nation territories across Canada. About 35 come from British Columbia. While we are two years into the recognition from the United Nations of the Decade of Indigenous Languages, we are seeing a reduction in funding in terms of all Indigenous peoples in this country, yet here we are celebrating Indigenous languages. There has been a real reduction from Heritage Canada in terms of funding that is coming to First Nations, Inuit and Métis across the country. We would rather see that increased during this time of recognition of the Decade of Indigenous languages. Thank you, senator.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you to the panellists this morning for sharing your knowledge and wisdom.
My question is for President Obed. This morning, you mentioned repatriation. I’m really curious about that. At committee in February, we had Assistant Deputy Minister Charles Slowey from Heritage. He stated that preliminary discussions had begun to deliver on the action plan and measures as they relate to repatriation and rematuration.
I’m curious what these preliminary discussions are, and have ITK identified specific cultural artifacts and/or other things that may need to be repatriated? Have you had any success with museums and institutions who are holding these artifacts? Thank you.
Mr. Obed: We have had some conversations with, say, the Canadian Museum of History and the Canadian War Museum most recently, here in this country, in relation to repatriation. A lot of our repatriation work has happened in the United States or in Europe. The U.S., in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, or NAGPRA, legislation, has been very positive in certain museums or institutions identifying Inuit human remains and then interacting with — in many cases, it has been Nunatsiavut so far, in northern Labrador. But we see the positive reality of legislation that demands that our human remains be returned to us for proper burial. In this country, it doesn’t exist. We have even had scenarios where individuals have mailed Inuit human remains to our offices, and we have then contacted the proper authorities, the Ontario Provincial Police. But that is the reality of where we are in this country. Our bones were collected. Our gravesites were raided for hundreds of years. Our bones are all over the world. We are now in a position where we have the resources and more and more understanding of where these items are, and we want them returned.
Domestically, it is imperative that we have the legislative basis to give honour to those who have not had honour in death. It seems as though it is a very basic thing, and there are no legislative authorities right now in the federal government to pursue this legislation, but it is imperative for Inuit to see that legislative gap closed for the implementation of our existing rights.
We have had successes in institutions repatriating remains. There are also items that are of cultural significance to Inuit that we believe were not taken in good faith and would like to see returned. There are then countless others that are undocumented that will take decades for us to work through.
The thing that perhaps most Canadians will know is the kayak that the Vatican holds, and we are still in conversation with the Vatican Museums to see that it is repatriated back to the Inuvialuit region in the Northwest Territories.
Senator Hartling: First, I want to say thank you to the witnesses. Chief Teegee, thank you for all your leadership in B.C. and the knowledge you bring. It is interesting you were speaking about Haida Gwaii; that bill is with us right now and we are excited to hopefully get that through soon, this week. I thank you for that.
President Obed, I follow you a lot on CBC and wherever you are speaking. You are very knowledgeable and I appreciate that and good leadership.
But it bothers me when we hear all this again — it seems like there is certainly a lack, as you have expressed. But the languages thing — I live in a bilingual province and it is not tolerated that people cannot have their services in their language, so I absolutely stand with you on that. I think that is something that must be a priority, to have the language of your choice for these services.
For our committee, it is difficult to see where we go from here. Do you have suggestions of areas or issues or witnesses or people we could build on so we can get further knowledge? One of the challenges for Canadians is they don’t know things. Last weekend, I went to a blanket exercise in New Brunswick and there were 50 people who came and said, “We never learned this in school.”
So there is certainly a lack of education generally. Can you maybe give us some insights into where we could go and how we could build on our knowledge so we can bring this further, be allies and support you? Thank you.
Mr. Obed: Within this space, within the Senate, I have greatly appreciated the conversations we have been able to have in committee on a host of different pieces of legislation or just topic areas of discussion. Our interventions here are largely to articulate our positions but also to warn against the way these issues are framed by the federal government and the departments that are working on these issues. There is, no matter which government is in power, a shorthand approach to trying to describe the world in a way that it actually isn’t, and that applies to the implementation of legislation and the creation of policies or programs. But for Inuit and other Indigenous peoples, it seems as though we still live in an age when — I’ll take language as an example. It is a categorically different understanding of obligation by the Government of Canada on its role in ensuring, say, Inuktitut is afforded the proper rights that it has as an Indigenous language in this country, in the way that the same government thinks about its obligations to the French language or English language.
No matter what hyperbole the government uses in speaking about how Canadians love Indigenous languages, none of that matters if you do not have the proper legislative foundation and the proper authorities in programs and policy to ensure that Inuit can speak Inuktitut to Government of Canada officials in relation to health care delivery.
It is the same thing when it comes to health care delivery in general, just the willingness of the government to accept lower outcomes for First Nations, Inuit and Métis in this country for key policy areas, key outcomes for health, wellness, life expectancy and socioeconomic status. These are not flukes. They are entire systems that are generating the type of language that gets them through these types of processes without actually solving crises.
If this committee can help us to cut through that tendency of government to smooth over any rough areas and to not actually get to the end that is stated, that is of great significance to us, because often we feel like we are trying to use logic, but logic doesn’t work in this space for Indigenous peoples in this country.
Mr. Teegee: If I may, you bring up a very important issue in regard to education. History has been written by those who hold the pen. Certainly, Indigenous history has to be understood in this country, realizing there are literally 60 different Indigenous languages and many diverse groups from British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. I think within those traditional territories, the history needs to be told that there were people here since time immemorial, that we have been here governing ourselves. And the terrible history of what we experienced in terms of the genocidal acts of over 100 years of residential schools, that needs to be taught in school. Also, the fact that we have been here for all this time and had our own governments and ways of knowing and being as Indigenous peoples, that has to be taught in schools and institutions, where I think it will be better understood within society.
Society has to understand why it is so important to have good relations with First Nations peoples in this country and realize whose territory you are on and perhaps a better understanding, really, to create a better relationship with First Nations peoples in their traditional territories such as urban centres. As you said, nobody knows the meaning of a blanketing ceremony. That needs to be taught in those respective territories that have those ceremonies.
It’s really important that the education system knows and understands that our languages have been here for far longer than perhaps even the English language. I think it needs to be taught in institutions, not only in schools but colleges and universities, the relationships with First Nations peoples and Inuit and Métis here in this country, to better understand where we are going and why it is important to have UNDRIP as legislation in law to recognize that First Nations are experiencing and have experienced, for many, many years, genocidal acts.
If you think about it, colonization of the Americas equated to genocide of our Indigenous peoples here in North America and in Africa. After the Doctrine of Discovery, after the doctrine of terra nullius, after the Papal Bulls were passed by the Pope, many of these countries came over to the Americas, whether it was the Spanish, Portuguese, French or British. The understanding is that, over 500 years, colonization really had a detrimental effect on not only Indigenous peoples in the Americas but also in Africa.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. These discussions are really informative for us.
As is my prerogative as deputy chair, I’m going to give myself a chance to ask a question.
You won’t be able to answer this question today, but you might want to reflect on it. I’m thinking in terms of consultation, co‑development and cooperation. Do you have preferred definitions or models of best practices — I know the B.C. provincial model might be part of an example — or something that you would like to put forward to this committee to study? I think it would help the analysts if there are any best practices.
You’ve been the subject of consultation for a long time. Obviously, it has not worked all that well. There is an opportunity, then, if we know more about what you would like to see, that we might be able to reflect that in a report or inform our further study on this. I would like to make mention of that.
Also, regarding ensuring consistency of federal laws with UNDRIP and any process to co‑develop laws — what are you thinking there? I know that you have spoken, chief, about the framework you have in mind. What type of assessment tools could be developed to guide the process?
Now, I have said that just to get into this one question that I would really like you to focus on — because I think maybe something in writing would answer the first part of my question: but in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan, there is item 19, the concept of establishing:
. . . an independent Indigenous rights monitoring, oversight, recourse or remedy mechanism or mechanisms to provide Indigenous peoples with access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for dispute and conflict resolution and effective remedies for infringements/violations of their individual and collective rights.
It seems as if that might be one of the most important and foundational areas that need to be focused on, because that contemplates an independent body with power, with teeth, something that is different from the National Council for Reconciliation.
Do you have thoughts on that development? You were involved in getting to that idea, and it has a broad body of potential as to what it could do. It might even answer the questions: What is consultation? How does it work? What is co‑development and cooperation?
Regarding that particular mechanism, it’s a similar question I asked of the Department of Justice when they came here, because it should be a priority in holding the government to account.
Any thoughts or comments you might have on that would be quite helpful. I would like the ITK and AFN to address that issue, if you could.
Then there is the last question for Senator Coyle.
Mr. Obed, would you like to go first?
Mr. Obed: Thank you.
To clarify our position on the National Council for Reconciliation, we do not support the legislation as it was drafted. The concept itself is a positive one. We think any institution out there in the world championing reconciliation is a positive step. Empowering that body to report to Parliament when it has no authority and is not a rights-holding institution is really dangerous, especially when you consider the history of co‑opting Indigenous rights-holding institutions in relation to other bodies. That’s where we don’t want to be in relation to the implementation of UNDRIP.
In relation to action plan section 19, ITK worked very closely with the Government of Canada on amending the act to include the ability to work on section 19.
The central premise of “What good is a right without recourse and remedy?” is really what we should all ask in relation to the implementation of the UNDRIP legislation. Since we have 150 years of experience seeing how human rights mechanisms and federal mechanisms have not been able to adequately uphold our existing rights, we felt like the ability to bring forward a specialized body that would focus on adjudicating and clearly providing direction in relation to the implementation of our rights in areas where there is a gap or violation would be immensely helpful in the implementation of UNDRIP in this country, and, from a logical perspective, is one of the big missing links if that is what the government would like to do.
The challenges we have had working on this have been that we just don’t see an end to the theoretical conversations on what it might be.
Will, do you want to add on about where we are at the moment?
Mr. David: There have been — for a variety of conditions — really limited discussions to follow up on action plan measure 19. You can refer to our position paper Establishing an Indigenous Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, and then the language of the priority measure to see how carefully the language in the priority measure was negotiated.
As Regional Chief Teegee pointed out, one of the challenges identified by government through a lot of priority measures, including potentially action plan measure 19, is a decided lack of mandate to proceed. Whatever is in the action plan is nice language but apparently not sufficiently covering the required mandate to action the item.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Teegee or Ms. Koerner-Yeo, do you have any comments on those questions?
Mr. Teegee: Certainly. I think it is a very important, fundamental question around how even this process isn’t following UNDRIP on free, prior and informed consent. I think this applies to the drafting of the bill itself, and also the action plan measures in the action plan itself, many of which — to my Indigenous colleagues in the room — were already perhaps developed without proper consultation with First Nations.
I think we did the best we could with what we had with this pre-cooked legislation, if you will, and perhaps the action plan. Nevertheless, action plan measure 19 is very important in terms of keeping these ministries accountable and ensuring they have proper mandates, especially in regard to some of these meetings where it is unclear to me what kind of mandates the assistant deputy minister or deputy minister has in regard to hearing our concerns and bringing that forward in terms of the implementation of UNDRIP.
I think whether it is a tribunal — that was suggested earlier as a good idea in terms of implementation — or what we have in British Columbia — a secretariat — to keep many of these ministries accountable within Parliament, both of those recommendations would probably be well suited to the implementation of the action plan measures and UNDA.
Further, it is really understanding why it is so important to have this in communications in terms of staff, of the bureaucracy, because in our experience — and I think it is not just British Columbia — within government, changing the machinery, changing the culture within a colonial government is very difficult to do from the outside in.
We need to figure out a plan for how we can change that to suit the needs of our First Nations and Indigenous people here in this country and the importance of implementing UNDRIP in terms of legislation.
In the end, this and similar questions have come to me over the last several weeks, and the reality here in British Columbia, and perhaps elsewhere, is that we end up in court. Often, we end up in court where the judge rules in our favour, but court isn’t the place to set up this relationship and ensure that our needs are heard and decisions are made together. I think that’s what we’re trying to avoid.
Free, prior and informed consent is necessary in any development in this country with the respective First Nations. Decision making has to be done together, and as stated in the recent court findings in the reference case in Quebec, it’s good to see that the Supreme Court is finally recognizing the provisions of UNDRIP, mentioning UNDRIP in its full capacity and recognizing that First Nations have the ability to govern themselves.
It’s really important that be shared widely within government and that there’s real communication with government and society in general about why it’s very important to reconcile with the Indigenous peoples of this country. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: I’m trying to take this in. Chief, you just talked about these barriers, the political barriers, the bureaucratic barriers, the bureaucratic culture barriers and the whole-of-Canadian-society ignorance barriers.
Ultimately, for us, when we’re talking about a whole-of-government approach, should we not be talking with the Prime Minister as opposed to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations? The Prime Minister of our country is the person who said that for his government, which is currently governing Canada, the most important relationship is the relationship with Indigenous people and, therefore, with Indigenous governments, right?
Every single ministerial mandate letter has that line about those relationships, right? Now we have UNDRIP in place, so we have put a stake in the ground, and there’s an accountability required.
I’m wondering if perhaps there should be some kind of a dialogue between this body here and the Prime Minister on what it would take to get that political whole-of-government action going, as well as the bureaucratic whole-of-government action going, in order to successfully move this forward. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Obed: We have a very productive Inuit-Crown relationship through the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee. The Prime Minister sits with us once a year. Two other times a year, anywhere from five to seven of his cabinet colleagues are there representing government. Minister Anandasangaree co‑chairs that space with me, and the Prime Minister co‑chairs that space with me once a year.
These progressive mechanisms have been put in place and ensure that the Prime Minister is an active part of the reconciliation process.
Some of the challenges have to do with weak points along the way within cabinet or within the departmental staff. You can attack this in many ways. You can attack this reconciliation agenda through overt dismissal and then daring your cabinet colleagues or your department to hold you to account for not doing the implementation work.
The work can be recategorized as being nice to have but not possible, so using the lines of “we don’t have the money; we don’t have the time; we don’t have the resources.” So you explain away the problems, saying that you would love to do something but can’t, or just dismissing the issues as being Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, or Indigenous Services Canada. Anything Indigenous, historically, once the minister heard that, just said, “Well, go talk to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations; go talk to Indigenous Services.” We’re in the early days of whole-of-government.
The Prime Minister, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister’s Office and all of the staff associated really have to play an oversight role that is exceptional in relation to other priority areas that they work on, and I recognize how difficult that is over time with all of the different things happening in the world, but as you mentioned, the Prime Minister has made an explicit point about how he values this particular relationship and what his ambitions are.
Ultimately, it is up to the leader of the governing party to ensure that that mandate is implemented, and we still find ourselves educating ministers, deputies and assistant deputies on what their obligations are in relation to what the government has promised, whether through legislation, policy, programs or through the Inuit-Crown partnership process, and it is quite exhausting. There are only 70 of us at ITK, and only one of me, and there are 30-plus departments that we interact with on this reconciliation agenda. It can be very difficult.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Chief Teegee, would you like to make a comment?
Mr. Teegee: Sure. Certainly, I think the Prime Minister needs to be an active participant in this relationship if it is truly the most important relationship. Further, I’m not sure how he makes his decisions. More recently, in August, we did see a cabinet shuffle. Sadly, we had to build up new relationships with Minister Virani after building up a good relationship with former Minister Lametti at that time. Minister Miller went out on his own accord to learn the Mohawk language. He was the Minister of CIRNAC and we built up a good rapport and relationship with him. Now we have to develop some level of trust and relationship with Minister Anandasangaree, Minister Virani and other ministers.
It is his own prerogative to form his own cabinet, but at the same time, he’s not only leading the cabinet but also this country, so he has to be an active participant in terms of this relationship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
It’s really important that he puts us as a priority, and perhaps, if I could put any suggestions to the Prime Minister, it is that we have a similar relationship as Inuit sometimes with the Prime Minister, and his cabinet with through of the key ministers, but if this is to be a priority, perhaps it should be high on his agenda; and perhaps, if it is high on his agenda, there needs to be more resourcing to implement the declaration itself and to build up the capacity of First Nations.
Further to that, having a whole-of-government approach is really necessary to strategize on how to deal with many of the issues that are plaguing First Nations. We are still dealing with issues around clean drinking water. The homelessness and housing crisis is massive, and we have been putting it out there that the Assembly of First Nations and the BCAFN recognize this as a human rights crisis.
Many of our First Nations across this country are dealing with the opioid crisis. As a matter of fact, it was deemed a state of emergency and a crisis in the province of B.C. back in 2016. Many of those statistics, sadly, are led by First Nations. We have the highest number of deaths. We came out of this pandemic a few years ago; the highest rates of infection and death were among First Nations.
If we are getting into justice and policing, we still have the highest rates of death in custody. We still have massively high incarceration rates. Indigenous women make up 90% in Saskatchewan.
Many of these issues need to be dealt with in a good way, and he needs to be a leader in these discussions with our Indigenous peoples here in this country. If he’s truly living up to this being the most important relationship, then let’s see it — and see him be a leader in terms of these discussions.
One of the solutions is the United Nations Declaration Act. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, chief. Thank you to all the witnesses. The time for this panel is now complete and I thank all the witnesses for joining us today. It was very informative. Thank you for the questions, senators.
If you wish to make any submissions subsequent to this — this is for all the witnesses — please submit them by email to our clerk. We would really appreciate anything in writing you’d want to add to amplify what you’ve said here today. Thank you.
For our next panel, from the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, President Nancy Etok. Thank you very much for coming today to assist us here with your testimony. President Etok, we will ask you to give some opening remarks for five minutes or so, and then I’ll be asking the senators to ask you a few questions and have an engaged discussion.
Thank you for coming, and I now ask President Nancy Etok to make her comments.
Nancy Etok, President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: Ullaakkut, Mr. Chair, committee members, guests and staff. [Indigenous language spoken]. Thank you. I’m in New York currently, at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Pauktuutit is the national representative organization of Inuit women, girls and gender-diverse Inuit, regardless of where they reside in Canada. Whether an Inuk lives in one of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat or in an urban centre, our organization will be a voice for their needs on health, violence, abuse prevention, justice, economic development, leadership, equity and self-determination.
Little progress has been made on housing, rates of intimate partner violence, shelters and child removal. It is undeniable that access to safe and adequate housing is key to addressing gender-based violence, equitable access and participation in community life and a major barrier to maintaining culture and community.
We also face a compounded issue as a result of our families being ripped apart due to child removal, and 19% of Inuit have reported being under the responsibility of the government before the age of 15. That is a staggering number when we compare that to the fact that only 1.3% of non-Indigenous people have been in government care.
This overrepresentation of Inuit children in care in Canada is a form of assimilation and just part of the historical injustice that UNDRIP and the government’s action plan is meant to address. Inuit women and communities have the inherent right to care for their children, youth and families. To address these inequitable and critical issues, Inuit women and girls’ most pressing needs include the provision of safe, affordable and suitable housing, including emergency shelters for Inuit women and families; ending racialized policing practices and restoring Inuit justice systems; and ending family violence by providing housing, income security, health services and basic infrastructure, and ensuring the continuity of Inuit cultural and land-based practices that enhance food security and provide access to healing.
To address the inequalities and systemic injustices Inuit women experience, it is essential for the Government of Canada to invest in Indigenous peoples, their sovereignty and their well-being. UNDRIP presents the possibility of a paradigm shift within the Government of Canada and a chance to come to terms with the reality of settler colonialism. The Government of Canada must make significant long-term investments in Indigenous communities. This work should be the highest priority for Canada going forward, but only if we ensure that the implementation upholds sections like Article 22, section 1, which recognizes the special needs of women, and Article 22, section 2, which ensures the protection of Indigenous women and children from all forms of violence.
UNDA specifically states that the implementation action plan must include measures to address injustice, combat prejudice and eliminate all forms of violence, racism and discrimination, including systemic racism and discrimination against Indigenous peoples, including women, children and gender-diverse peoples. Your approach to this act must reflect the aspirations and spirit of UNDRIP and undertake the task of effectively decolonizing legislation in Canada.
Inuit leadership in the implementation of UNDRIP is woven into the declaration itself. However, it is important that we stress that Inuit women’s voices must be part of this process. To achieve meaningful outcomes in the implementation of UNDA, Canada must engage Inuit women’s advocates, representatives, organizations and communities as experts and ensure that consultation processes are not performative, inefficient and counterproductive.
UNDA must maintain and apply the broadest interpretation of UNDRIP to ensure that colonial interests and priorities, which UNDRIP is meant to curtail, are not allowed to supersede or impede progress and change. Without investment, the outcomes envisioned in UNDRIP will not materialize. The Government of Canada must prioritize investment in the implementation of UNDRIP, not only within the context of Inuit legislation, rights and services but across all federal departments.
I look forward to discussing this further with each of the members of the committee.
Nakurmiik.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, President Etok, for your opening comments. I will ask my colleague senators if they would like to ask a question.
Senator Hartling: Nancy — my name’s Nancy too, so that’s nice. We have something in common. Also, in my career before the Senate, I worked with women regarding violence, sexual abuse and similar issues, so I know how deeply they affect women and their families.
You have made some really good points. I see that section 6 of UNDRIP is a call to change these things, but you are saying little has happened. What are some of the things that should happen immediately? I know there are many issues, from housing to food security and all those things, but what are the challenges? I imagine some of them are because this is in remote areas, but can you tell us a little more about some things the committee should pay attention to?
Thank you.
Ms. Etok: I wanted to start by saying that when I saw your name, I thought, “That’s a really nice name.”
There are a lot of changes that government is not moving on enough. As you said, a lot needs changing, like housing. If we can ensure that housing is provided, that will bring a lot of good solutions to families who are in need. If you don’t have safe shelter, a lot of other changes cannot happen. We see the shortage of shelters and housing. When you have a safe space, then you can work on all the other issues you’re facing.
I would say that is one of the big things, but as I mentioned, there are many.
Senator Hartling: In New Brunswick, I visited Elsipogtog, which is one of the Indigenous communities. They have this plan where the women have gone to learn the trades, and they are building houses in their community, supported by the government.
Sometimes when we are waiting and waiting, it’s very difficult. That’s when women don’t leave the situation. In terms of shelters, is that another problem? Are there places where women can go in your communities?
Ms. Etok: Like I mentioned, we are a voice for four regions. Each region has different needs. What we have to handle is massive, and there is never any funding. Even if there were a group of women who want to build shelters, we would need funding to make that into a reality.
Each region’s needs are absolutely different, so it’s very complex to just answer this in one form because we’re dealing with all Inuit women’s issues across Canada.
Funding is always an issue, depending on which region, so it is really hard for me to answer specifically.
Senator Hartling: I imagine, Nancy, that it must get discouraging for you sometimes. It’s hard to keep going when you see these gaps. How do you handle that?
Ms. Etok: My grandmother raised me, so I always go back to my foundation of “you continue.” I always have to remind myself that my ancestors survived the harshest conditions with nothing, and so I always believe that’s instilled in me. I have to keep reminding myself that despite anything that’s coming my way, we survived the harshest conditions, and we can survive this.
However, we need to find ways to work together so we may provide what is needed in these Inuit regions. We will keep going.
Senator Hartling: We will support whatever we can. Thank you.
Ms. Etok: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome, Ms. Etok. I understand that in 2022 — I think — your organization launched an Inuit-specific gender-based analysis-plus framework. Could you tell us a bit about that?
Ms. Etok: I don’t have all the answers about this program, but I would absolutely be happy to provide a written submission. I would want to provide all the information accurately. Because I don’t have it here, I will gladly provide a written submission on that.
Senator Sorensen: All right, that would be great.
I have a follow-up question. At the highest level, when we look at the action plan, do you think the plan provides adequate attention to the specific challenges you’re speaking of? I understand that what comes out of the plan may be less than impressive at this point, but do you think the plan itself pays adequate attention to your concerns?
Ms. Etok: As I mentioned, a lot of work still needs to be put forward. We have done an immense amount of work, but there is still a lot of work to be done. That would require that they sit down with us and hear the realities we face, so we can close the gap on the realities we are facing and the issues we have to deal with. It will require that we sit down to ensure we close the wide gap.
I think having a sit-down conversation is the only way that I would personally be satisfied that we are on the same terms now, because sometimes it feels like we are not on the same terms of understanding the situations. Sitting down and having that conversation will be more satisfactory for me, personally.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, President Etok. I have a couple of questions for you.
Pauktuutit has always been quite active in international forums like the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. You’re in New York again today, participating in that forum. How do you see the international advocacy, which you and your organization have been involved in for a long time, evolving in light of what Canada’s trying to do with the UNDRIP Act? Do you think it’s quite effective in assisting with the issues you are dealing with?
Ms. Etok: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. I am fairly new to my position, but having the voice of Inuit women is absolutely crucial for involvement worldwide, whether it be Inuit or any Indigenous women putting our voice out there. If we start speaking the same language, it will only strengthen us. Being international and connecting with other Indigenous women, that’s strength building. Yes, thank you for that question.
The Deputy Chair: What specific programs are you, in your presidency, focusing on? What initiatives does Pauktuutit have to focus on to promote the well-being and rights of Inuit women across Canada?
Ms. Etok: Thank you for that question. As I mentioned earlier, we are a voice for the needs of health, anti-violence, abuse prevention, justice, economic development, leadership, equity and self-determination. But if you want more specific information on that — as I mentioned, I am fairly new in my position — I would be happy to provide a written submission so that you may acquire all the information and have a better understanding of the work that we do at Pauktuutit.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we would very much appreciate that because it will give a chance for our analysts and the senators who are not here today to understand some of these issues in a much better way. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from senators for the president here today?
Hearing none, I want to thank you, President Etok, for taking the time today. You obviously have a very busy schedule. But the voice of Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada is very important to the work we do, to understand the issues you have and better place us in a position to support what you are trying to do. Thank you for coming today and assisting us in our work.
(The committee adjourned.)