THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 1, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:50 p.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 Métis peoples; and, in camera, to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following preventative measures.
To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.
As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.
All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece.
By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table where indicated.
Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones.
Participants must only plug their earpieces into the microphone console located directly in front of them.
These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I’m Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: My name is David Arnot, and I’m from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Martin: Hello. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator McNair: Hello. John McNair from New Brunswick. I’m standing in for Senator Hartling, and I’m from the unceded territories of the Mi’kmaq.
Senator Busson: Good afternoon and welcome. My name is Bev Busson from British Columbia, standing in for Margo Greenwood, who is also from British Columbia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: Judy White from Newfoundland and Labrador, the ancestral home of the Mi’kmaq.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Kwe. I’m Michèle Audette from Nitassinan, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Hello. It’s good to see you all. I’m Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Today, we will continue our new study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, also known as UNDA, UNDRIPA and the UNDRIP Act, by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses: from the Métis National Council, Cassidy Caron, President; and from the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Lisa J. Smith, Advisor to the President. Thank you both for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
I now invite President Caron to give her opening remarks.
Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council: Thank you, Senator Francis. [Indigenous language spoken]. Good evening, everybody. I join you today as the President of the Métis National Council, which has been the recognized national and international representative of the Métis Nation in Canada since 1983.
The Métis National Council is compromised of, and we receive our direct mandate from, democratically elected leadership within the provincial Métis governments currently within the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. Since 1983, the Métis National Council’s priority has always been and will remain our Métis citizens, and we will continue to advance issues of collective importance in serving the Métis Nation as our original founders intended.
I want to thank the Senate committee for their invitation to discuss the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. I also want to recognize that many of us are gathering on unceded territories of Indigenous peoples, recognizing that the Métis National Council’s head office is on Algonquin Anishinaabe territory. We’re grateful for the stewardship of their traditional and unceded lands that we work from.
Before I begin, I want to point out to everybody that May 5 of this week is Red Dress Day. It is a day to remember and honour missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ peoples. It’s with these thoughts that I’m pleased to be here speaking with all of you today on the successes, challenges and opportunities for improvement with respect to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — or UNDA, as I will refer to it.
The Métis National Council and our Métis governments have been working with several Government of Canada departments to implement various action plan measures, or APMs, in both the “Shared priorities” chapter and the Métis-specific chapter. This work has been done without adequate self-determined funding, and our officials have heard from multiple departments that they do not have the dedicated funding for UNDA implementation. This is a serious barrier for the Métis Nation and Canada to continue to implement the obligations within the action plan.
In discussion with departments, the Métis National Council and our Governing Members officials have been repeatedly informed by federal officials that they lack a clear mandate to undertake the work. This is concerning and poses another significant challenge to implementation.
Section 5 of UNDA states:
The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.
The Métis Nation has faced significant structural barriers in addition to the lack of commitment to understanding what full consultation and cooperation means in practice pursuant to section 5 of UNDA.
I want to make our position clear. “Consultation and cooperation” is not broad engagement. Federal officials took that position before this honourable committee on February 27, and the Métis National Council respectfully disagrees. However, Canada and the Métis Nation have made some progress on the implementation of UNDA, most notably on the Métis action plan measure 10 and the development of the Canada-Métis Nation principles of co-development. These principles ensure there is a mechanism in place that provides for a unified, whole-of-government understanding and approach to the implementation of section 5 of UNDA, as well as the requisite threshold for consultation and cooperation.
The principles set out how the Métis Nation and Canada can co-develop law and policy together equitably in a manner that fulfills Canada’s obligation and upholds Métis people’s inherent right to self-determination. The principles represent a significant development guiding how the parties will work together on joint initiatives, including draft legislation, statutory or periodic review of legislation, regulations and content for policies, programs and services, those that flow from the implementation of the UN declaration in particular.
I last spoke to this committee in December 2023 about the importance of action plan measure 19. It’s incredibly disappointing that, unfortunately, I can offer you no substantive update on the implementation of this measure. Over three months later, Canada and the Métis Nation are no closer to establishing a mechanism, which is necessary for implementing UNDRIP and advancing reconciliation. It is the position of the Métis National Council that this mechanism be Indigenous led, distinctions based and informed by Indigenous customs and legal understandings.
With that, I want to thank you for having me here today. I look forward to the discussion that will ensue.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, President Caron. I now invite Ms. Smith to give her opening remarks.
Lisa J. Smith, Advisor to the President, Native Women’s Association of Canada: Hello, honourable committee members and President Caron. It is a pleasure to speak to you today from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, the land of the Beothuk. I will outline the significance of the action plan for the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, and the people we serve.
I will talk about challenges, successes, opportunities to improve and gaps.
The significance — The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in part discusses the importance of UNDRIP in respecting and making space for Indigenous self-determination and self-governance; the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples to all decision-making processes that affect them; eliminating gender discrimination in the Indian Act; and so on.
If implemented in a good way, the action plan will uphold the human security of women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people. When I say “Indigenous women and gender-diverse,” that is inclusive.
What are the challenges? Throughout the drafting phase of the action plan, NWAC’s persistent reminders to the Government of Canada to include precise language related to Indigenous women’s issues underscored the enduring challenge of securing sufficient representation and consideration for their concerns.
Many critical Indigenous women’s issues have yet to be specifically addressed in the action plan. Deep-rooted, systemic barriers have hindered Indigenous women’s organizations’ involvement during the drafting phase, with NWAC experiencing delays in receiving the draft action plan compared to other Indigenous organizations.
The reluctance to embrace Indigenous women’s organizations’ active engagement perpetuates marginalization and undermines the potential for inclusive and comprehensive policy development.
The Government of Canada’s imposition of tight deadlines on NWAC often challenges its ability to produce timely and comprehensive responses.
Furthermore, several of NWAC’s proposals were not included in the final action plan.
But what are the successes? In terms of Indigenous women’s leadership, the inclusion of measures in the action plan that recognize the leadership and advocacy efforts of Indigenous women’s organizations and communities represents a noteworthy achievement — namely, measures 69 and 70.
The action plan reflects the gender-based disparities that Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit, transgender and gender-diverse people encounter, such as over-incarceration, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, or MMIWG, crisis, gender-based violence, membership discrimination and systemic racism in our health care system.
In terms of opportunities, by investing in capacity building, Indigenous women’s organizations can facilitate greater participation of Indigenous women in decision-making processes at all levels.
Establishing robust, Indigenous-led mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the implementation progress of the action plan presents a crucial opportunity for accountability and transparency. NWAC emphasizes the importance of establishing clear benchmarks and indicators to accurately assess the impact of the action plan.
By prioritizing accountability mechanisms, Canada can demonstrate its commitment to effective implementation.
NWAC believes a section on Indigenous women and gender‑diverse people’s priorities must also be included. According to subsection 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982, both men and women are entitled to the same Aboriginal and treaty rights. Numerous studies conducted in Canada reveal that Indigenous women and gender-diverse people face considerably more disadvantages than their cis male counterparts and are worthy of unique protection.
What are the gaps? While the action plan frequently references a gender-based lens, it lacks gender-specific solutions led by Indigenous women to address the unique challenges faced by Indigenous women and girls.
Despite the adoption of the UNDRIP Act and the publication of the action plan, a critical gap exists in the absence of legislative mechanisms to enforce its provisions.
NWAC advocates for the development of a robust legal framework that upholds the rights of Indigenous peoples and holds governments accountable for their implementation. For instance, the establishment of an UNDRIP administrative tribunal could provide a mechanism for Indigenous peoples to seek recourse and address violations of their rights in a legal context. What is a right without a remedy?
The action plan lacks clarity on how implementation success will be monitored and evaluated, as well as the key indicators for measuring progress.
Without clear timelines, it becomes challenging to track milestones, identify areas for improvement and ensure timely implementation of initiatives outlined in the action plan.
To reiterate, NWAC would like to see more specific references throughout the action plan to Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people as a gender-based marginalized group whose rights are worthy of protection. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Smith. We’ll now move on to questions from senators, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Arnot: My first question is to President Caron; I also have a second question for Ms. Smith from NWAC.
President, how do you envision the Métis National Council using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to support Métis communities? I’m interested in your strategies for preserving Métis culture and language. I’m also interested in measure 19, which you’ve spoken about. I’ve asked many witnesses about that, because I believe it offers a powerful opportunity to have a really effective mechanism, the likes of which we haven’t seen before. If you can comment on that, I’d appreciate it.
Ms. Smith, similarly, as a lawyer, do you believe the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act can leverage and advance the rights and interests of Indigenous women both in Canada and internationally? Does it have adequate teeth? What do you need to fully realize the strategies NWAC wants to implement? Third, if you get a chance, I’d like you to comment on measure 19, the dispute resolution mechanism, which would be Indigenous led and should be a focus, because it does have a lot of opportunities in it. That’s my comment, but I’d like to hear your answers on those issues.
Ms. Caron: Thank you, Senator Arnot. It’s great to see you. Broadly speaking, regarding how UNDRIP can be applied to continue the Métis Nation’s work within revitalization of culture and language, ultimately, UNDRIP provides us a tool for self‑determination and the opportunity to do just that with regard to cultural and language revitalization. There are a number of action plan measures, of course, within the Métis-specific chapter that we have highlighted as priorities, but we also developed different action plan measures jointly with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, and the Government of Canada that would contribute to the work of revitalization and the promotion of culture and language.
Specifically, the action plan measure around the repatriation of cultural items is significant in our journey of revitalizing our culture and language. These historic, culturally significant, traditional items that are no longer within our communities tell a unique story about who we are as a people. It tells a unique story about the time when these items were created or used, and we don’t have access to those items right now.
Repatriation and rematriation, which a lot of our community members talk about, are part of that journey and embedded within UNDRIP and the action plan.
Speaking to action plan measure 19, I mentioned that I was here speaking to you in December about its importance. Unfortunately, we’ve seen no further commitment from the Government of Canada to continue to develop this. It was during the development of the action plan that the Métis National Council was engaged in multilateral negotiations with Canada, but also working with ITK, AFN and many federal departments on action plan measure 19. The Métis National Council worked with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami on a position paper which outlines our views on the mandate, jurisdiction and structure of an Indigenous human rights institution. We would be pleased to share that with this committee.
There are so many benefits to an independent Indigenous human rights tribunal; ensuring that the laws are consistent with UNDRIP is just one.
As Lisa mentioned, there is no right without remedy or recourse. We must have that accountability mechanism. Action plan measure 19 is crucial to ensuring that the full implementation of UNDRIP is done in a good way.
Department of Justice Canada is responsible for implementing that measure, and it was understood that legislation would be required. So, aside from the Métis-specific chapter of the action plan, measure 19 is a priority for the Métis National Council. We’re hoping to see a commitment for legislation establishing this mechanism before 2025.
A final comment on that is that it must be Indigenous led. I’m glad that we have the opportunity to speak to you again about action plan measure 19. We thought it would be one of the first ones out of the gate, but unfortunately we’ve seen no movement on it.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Ms. Smith: Thank you for the excellent questions. As a lawyer, I celebrate UNDRIP because of section 5, which discusses alignment of all policy and legislation. If we truly do that, we can protect our rights as Indigenous peoples.
There are other factors here. NWAC really believes that an UNDRIP non-derogation clause should be put into the Interpretation Act, for example, and perhaps we need to put UNDRIP in our Constitution to have that added protected right.
We must also realize that when we’re talking about UNDRIP, it is the minimum — the floor — of human rights. Also, what NWAC really did push was specific references to specific issues so that there is that practicality to enforcing UNDRIPA. For example, we made specific references to forced sterilization. We want to make it easier for Indigenous women to avail of ultrasounds to see if they have been sterilized without their consent. We want to make a world where there are more Indigenous women entering the health care system and that sort of thing — so really seeing it from a bottom-up perspective.
I’ll give you an example of something that the government didn’t accept in their action plan that NWAC put forward, to show you where this can advance NWAC’s priorities.
Measure 3 states:
Where a statute requires periodic review, responsible departments will conduct that review in a manner that ensures consistency with the UN Declaration . . .
NWAC wanted the words “. . . and responsive to a culturally relevant, gender-based analysis” added to this.
Legally, we’ve done a culturally relevant, gender-based analysis on UNDRIPA, and we are constantly monitoring legislation in this country. We’re not seeing subsection 35(4) of the Constitution, which protects equal rights for both genders, being applied here. So, we feel this is another avenue whereby we can really protect the human security and minimum human rights of our women.
Finally, in Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5, we see in paragraph 3:
The framework serving as the foundation for this reconciliation initiative by Parliament is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . . . .
I say that because I heard from experts we engaged with that we are seeing a big push from the government about how that this is all about reconciliation, as opposed to Indigenous peoples enjoying their human rights. There is a shift in the narrative here that sometimes gets in the way.
I also heard in that same engagement session that some folks don’t like the word “implementation,” and that was the first time I heard this. To them, it seems like a top-down approach, whereas enforcing UNDRIP is a bottom-up approach. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to both of our witnesses. I would like to hear, first of all, from President Caron. Good to see you. I’d love to hear a little more about these principles of co‑development that you’ve talked about. You’re encouraged with the progress there, but I would like to know about those principles in a little more luminous detail, if you could tell us about them: the essence of those principles, how they were — hopefully — co-developed and how they will actually be used.
Ms. Caron: It’s great to see you as well, Senator Coyle. The principles of co-development were one of the action plan’s measures that the Métis National Council put into our specific Métis chapter. Where we’re at with our principles of co‑development right now is that we’re working through this process at our permanent bilateral mechanism — or PBM — table, which was established by the Canada-Métis Nation Accord in 2017. The principles of co-development essentially lay out the ways that the Métis National Council will continue to work with the Government of Canada. “Co-development” is somewhat of a buzz word right now within the Government of Canada. Even when we come to parliamentary committees, Senate committees, we often get the question: Was this piece of legislation, policy or program co-developed with the Métis Nation?
We sought to determine and define what “co-development” for the Métis Nation actually was. So, we outlined that for our government partners, and we’ve been working with a number of different government departments for the last two to three years to finalize what these co-development principles are. I will say that, yes, they are co-development principles. We did have to wiggle a little bit. There were other areas of the co-development principles where we would like to see stronger language. We have received endorsement from our permanent bilateral mechanism table. The ministers who are responsible for the priority areas that we’re focused on at that PBM table right now, as well as our Métis Nation leadership, have endorsed the co‑development principles.
We are at a stage where we’re going to be receiving sign-off from the Prime Minister this spring at our Canada-Métis Nation Summit. Once that’s done, we will be looking for a cabinet directive from the Prime Minister to actually implement these co-development principles.
Once we have that, there will no longer be an excuse for the government to say they didn’t co-develop because they don’t know what “co-develop with the Métis Nation” actually meant. This provides us with some strong guidelines on what that is.
We’re at the implementation stage for co-development principles. We’ve agreed on using them in certain areas, including health at this point. When we get to the development of Indigenous health legislation, we will be using these co‑development principles as the test case — that first piece of legislation that we’ll be co-developing.
That’s where we are. Once we receive that endorsement from the Prime Minister, we’ll be happy to share all those co‑development principles with all of you as well, and would gladly invite you to be champions of those co-development principles alongside us.
Senator Coyle: You can’t share them with us yet, obviously. You’re going to share them with us once both you and the Prime Minister have signed off. Is that correct?
Ms. Caron: I will check with my team to see if we can share a copy with you. They’re pretty much in the final stage. As I said, they’ve been endorsed by our leaders’ table at the PBM. I’ll check with my team to see if we can share them at the stage they’re at now, but once they’re signed off on by the Prime Minister, for sure. We’re hoping that will be before the end of this session, so in May or June. You will have those very soon, if not immediately.
Senator Coyle: That would be very helpful.
Senator Sorensen: My first question is directed to Ms. Smith. One of the First Nations priorities in the action plan is the eventual abolition of the Indian Act. The Indian Act has distinctly negative impacts on Indigenous women, leading to ongoing issues like second-generation cut-off.
Do you believe the abolition of the act would be beneficial to Indigenous women today?
The second part of the question is this: Will the remaining inequities in the Indian Act need to be addressed before the act itself could be abolished?
Ms. Smith: Thank you. That’s an excellent question. I celebrated the day that UNDRIPA received Royal Assent. I said, “Oh my gosh, how are we going to move beyond the Indian Act?” because it obviously does not align. It is a very colonial, harmful act. We even have the Human Rights Council saying it is one of the more racist instruments in Canada.
There is a bill before Parliament, Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements). NWAC had an engagement session with a lot of folks from coast to coast to coast. We kept hearing the same thing: That bill does not go far enough. You even referenced the second-generation cut-off rule. So, we have a lot of work to do.
We’re still seeing harm from the Indian Act, even since Bill S-3, because there are still people living in this country who have mothers who have been disenfranchised by the Indian Act and who are now removed from their culture as women. So we’re still seeing the harm.
It is a big discussion. I have a lot of faith that we can move beyond it. We do have to massage some fears in a lot of communities because it is all we know. I know the Senate did a wonderful study on the Indian Act, but we have to work together to move beyond it and ensure that we’re not leaving anyone behind when we do so.
Senator Sorensen: Ms. Caron, it’s lovely to see you.
I want to follow up on Senator Coyle’s question to you from you were discussing co-development principles. “Co‑development” has become a word we are using and overusing, as we are with “consultation.” I would be very interested to know about the process you just described to come up with co‑development principles that everybody understands. Is any work being done like that around the word “consultation,” that is, what actual consultation is?
I’ll direct this to you, President Caron, and I don’t know whether Ms. Smith has a comment on that as well.
Ms. Caron: It is great to see you as well. I’m sad that I can’t be there in person, but it is great to see you virtually.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no work being done to jointly understand what “consultation and cooperation” means. I think you’ve all seen some of the discrepancies between what we understand “consultation and cooperation” to mean versus some of our Government of Canada colleagues. I referenced that in my opening remarks.
It would be extremely beneficial for us to be able to co‑develop what that means because there are so many inconsistencies. Right now, it is the MNC’s position that “consultation and cooperation” has the same legal meaning in UNDA, as Parliament has imported the standard from UNDRIP into Canadian law.
To uphold Canada’s obligation by ensuring adherence to the minimum standards articulated in UNDRIP, consultation and cooperation processes have to be designed to achieve the end of obtaining free, prior and informed consent of the Métis Nation. It has to be based in consent of the parties, not predetermined by Canada, including initial assessments of impacts on the Métis Nation and Métis rights. Cooperation and consultation have to promote and respect the processes of our Métis governments, informed by Métis values, culture, traditions and law.
What we’re seeing now is a complete lack of capacity to go beyond broad engagement. That’s where the government is stuck right now. They say that they provided us with the opportunity to consult through these broad engagement sessions, and that’s not even the minimum standard, from our perspective.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. We’re hearing that a lot.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses this evening. It’s nice to see you, albeit online.
As I was listening to my colleagues’ questions, I had a question in mind, but I feel as if I’m just beginning to understand the complexity of this action plan, how it’s being “implemented” or “enforced,” top-down versus bottom-up.
President Caron, you just talked about the lack of capacity to go forward beyond broad engagement. My question was about how it has been going since the release. It has been close to a year since the release of the action plan, which took about two years to compile. There are 181 measures. That’s a lot to deal with.
Am I correct in understanding that in order to go forward, the engagement you need to do with your organizations and community has been challenging in that you have a lot of groups and individuals to hear from, so that, at best, it has been sort of a broad engagement? I was curious how much you have done within your own groups. I can only imagine trying to deal with this action plan and all of the measures that you want to go forward with.
I first want to understand how that has been within your own group. What are the challenges, be they financial or time constraints? How has it been for each of your groups, for the Métis Nation and for NWAC?
Ms. Caron: Thank you, Senator Martin. It’s great to see you.
I first want to clarify that the broad engagement barrier that we face is not for us to broadly engage with the Métis Nation; it’s Canada. When they are looking to engage on a piece of legislation, program or policy, they are the ones who are implementing these broad engagement processes. They’ll just put up a web page, send us an email and say, “Métis Nation, you, as a nation within this nation, can give us some input, if you want, by going to this web link and sending us an email.”
That’s not cooperation and consultation. That’s what I mean by the broad engagement not even meeting the minimum standard of cooperation and consultation.
The action plan itself is complex. It has a lot within it. However, I’m proud of the process that we utilized to co-develop the action plan as it exists today.
For the Métis Nation specifically, we had working groups with all of our Métis governments — who are democratically elected — with their public services, to co-develop around what the priorities of the Métis Nation are, in order to establish what goes into that Métis-specific chapter. We used our own self‑determined governance systems to ensure all the action plan measures for the Métis Nation were reviewed by elected officials, to ensure we used our processes and achieved all of the approvals that were necessary. Even with limited capacity, we met our duties to consult with our nation to ensure the action plan was actually representative of the Métis Nation’s priorities.
Now that we’re in the process of implementing the action plan, we still face a number of structural barriers. One of them is funding. The Métis National Council and our Governing Members have taken on a significant amount of work without adequate self-determined funding. What I mean by that is oftentimes there will be little pots of funding, but it’s determined by the Government of Canada how we spend those funds rather than us determining how we want to implement these action plan measures. We keep hearing from officials that there is no more dedicated funding for UNDA implementation. We didn’t see any more dedicated funding for UNDA implementation in this past budget, and we advocated for more. It’s never been enough.
The second structural barrier that we are faced with is difficult, because in the development of the action plan, this is a document that has been put in front of Parliament. It has been tabled within Parliament. These are priorities that we assumed had been accepted by both the Métis Nation and the Government of Canada. It seems that this should provide the Government of Canada with a significant mandate to implement these action plan measures. However, after the tabling of the action plan, we’ve had multiple discussions with departments — between the Métis National Council, our Governing Members and Government of Canada officials — and the Government of Canada is relying on this excuse that there’s a lack of a clear mandate to undertake the work of actually implementing the action plan measures.
This excuse that there’s no mandate to implement the action plan measures is one of the biggest challenges we’re faced with right now, even though — as I said — we figured that this document being co-developed, accepted and tabled in front of Parliament would provide sufficient mandate to do so.
The third structural barrier we come up against is that lack of a co-developed, defined position on what “consultation and cooperation” is. That continues to be a barrier.
Those are the three barriers: funding, the excuse of a lack of a mandate or authority to implement the action plan and the lack of a co-developed position on cooperation and consultation.
We continue to be extremely dedicated to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the action plan, because we see this as such a unique position and time in our history, that we are able to use this as a tool to continue to have our rights recognized and implemented in this country. Simply put, that’s the future of this country. We have to accept that this is what the future looks like. We just have to do the work now.
Senator Martin: Thank you for clarifying that you have done your part and are ready, and it’s the government that is yet to be able to implement in the way that you expect it. It was very helpful to identify those three barriers.
Ms. Smith, did you want to add anything?
Ms. Smith: I think President Caron did a really good job of outlining a lot. I will add that we do face a barrier in terms of capacity, which equals funding. We also had a lot of pushback from government around that meaningful engagement. There were a lot of delays in terms of even getting the draft national action plan as opposed to other Indigenous organizations. There were a lot of challenges for us.
I do want to bring up another point, though. When we talk about UNDRIP, and reconciliation and these things — certainly when we talk about the relationship aspect of it — we have to be mindful of operational practices within government as well. Often, on my end and in my experience, co-development will mean that the Government of Canada drafted something and wants our feedback; hey may or may not include it. Obviously, that’s not co-development.
There are operational practices that do that. I’ll give you an example. Bill C-61 is —
The Chair: Ms. Smith, I’m sorry to interrupt. Could I get you to wrap up? I apologize, but we have a hard stop at 7:35 p.m. because we have another panel. Feel free to put anything additional in writing to our clerk within seven days.
Ms. Smith: Certainly. I was just going to say that the First Nations clean water act says that it’s UNDRIP compliant, but it doesn’t have Indigenous women as water carriers in it. That’s an operational practice, to throw out those words and not in a meaningful way.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
The time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witnesses for joining us today. As I mentioned earlier, if you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk within seven days.
I would now like to introduce our next witnesses. From the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Marilyn Slett, Chief & Secretary-Treasurer; and from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, John G. Paul, Executive Director. Thank you both for joining us today. The witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will then be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I invite Chief Slett to give her opening remarks.
Marilyn Slett, Chief & Secretary-Treasurer, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs: Hello. I’m the Secretary-Treasurer for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, or UBCIC, and the elected chief councillor for the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. My community is located on the central coast of British Columbia. Thank you for the invitation to be here before you today on behalf of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.
We have four different areas highlighted priorities that we wanted to briefly cover: First Nations-led implementation, lack of government mandates, whole-of-government approaches and funding.
Regarding the first topic — the UBCIC is a provincial advocacy organization that advocates for First Nations’ inherent Aboriginal rights, title, and jurisdiction in the province of B.C. We continue to advocate for the full implementation of the UN declaration in Canada through a First Nations-led, distinctions‑based and land-based approach.
To achieve this potential, Canada must come to the table and demonstrate its commitment to upholding these standards through a whole-of-government, comprehensive and coordinated framework which recognizes First Nations’ right to self‑determination and self-government.
We have had some concerns and they are as follows: first, and expedited development timeline which didn’t permit fulsome participation from First Nations; second, a lack of capacity for funding for First Nations to adequately participate; third, a lack of transparency around how First Nation priorities were incorporated into the action plan; and fourth, the content of many of the APMs were derived from existing commitments and existing initiatives.
Moving into the whole-of-government approach, 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. It 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 and must guide all federal ministry efforts to bring their policies, bylaws and practices into alignment with the UN declaration.
We also wanted to touch on the lack of government mandates. The UBCIC is a member of the First Nations Leadership Council. 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. We have begun working to implement the UN declaration at this table and others. We are already noticing a gap and lack of sufficient mandates from the Government of Canada, with a lack of whole-of-government commitment and framework mandating First Nations co-implementation of the action plan measures, and a lack of commitment to any coordination effort to ensure First Nations’ priorities are driving the implementation of the action plan measures.
We also wanted to touch on the topic of funding, and you’ve already heard about it from the other two speakers. 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 not possible.
It is essential for the Government of Canada to commit to funding implementation efforts to act as a true partner in the process to achieve reconciliation.
I found it interesting with the earlier comments around “reconciliation” being a buzzword. I want to share something from my community: We don’t have a word for “reconciliation” in our language, Heiltsuk, but we do have the term [Indigenous language spoken], which means “to turn something around — to make it right again.”
The UN declaration is the framework for reconciliation as articulated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We must think carefully about how we can use the declaration to make meaningful change for First Nations across Canada. It is all of our responsibility to ensure an equitable future for everyone.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Slett. I now invite Mr. Paul to give his opening remarks.
John G. Paul, Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to provide some comments related to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, and the federal action plan tabled in 2013. Our mandate as the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs is focused on advocacy related to federal policy and the conduct of policy research, analysis and to provide culturally relevant alternatives to federal policies which impact Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik, Passamaquoddy and Innu First Nation communities. All our chiefs, communities and people recognize the significance and importance of the UNDRIP Act and all elements of the declaration to empower our self‑determination and the full implementation of our Aboriginal and treaty rights so we can realize our fullest potential in Canada and fully benefit all our people in all our communities.
The many specific 111 actions identified as a government-wide approach in the action plan from 2023 lack specifics on timelines and specific actions which can be demonstrated for each item and how specifically each Indigenous group from each region would be able to determine the level of impact or tangible changes which had occurred. Unless the actions lead to fundamental changes in the local First Nations communities and directly impact people in all our communities, the impact will not connect to the directions or outcomes related to our self-determination.
Each of the action items must be looked at on three levels — nationally, regionally and provincially — to determine the level of impact or changes which have occurred and whether they are visible or apparent to the people impacted in our communities. Unless our leaders see direct change and impacts at the community level, the overarching goals and action achieved would be minimal.
Both nationally, regionally and provincially specific actions must be identified to clearly demonstrate actions have been taken by all the various parts of the federal government. The lack of specific designated individuals in each federal department will not allow the level of focus needed to determine if actions are actually taken or implemented.
On the Indigenous side, to maintain a level of focus and applied attention, it is critical a specific advocacy role person or persons be identified at each community and all Indigenous organizations involved in each of the actions identified and actioned in the larger action plan. This should also be the case regionally and provincially with each government impacted or given the responsibility to act.
A major gap with many actions is the lack of specific financial resources to establish a specific policy or program-level work and focused actions. The lack of resources will deteriorate the value of the tangible actions and the focus of governments and the various First Nations communities across the country.
These actions and the implementation of the UNDRIP Act and fundamental change in regulations, policies, programs and services to accommodate these new approaches and practices is fundamental for a level of success to ensure real changes occur.
The First Nations and many Indigenous organizations recognize these changes for self-determination but require ongoing support and specifically assigned people with the expertise to action implementation and apply tools of measurement of the actual changes which would occur year over year.
In terms of the 13 shared priorities and the degree to which all laws are consistent with the UNDRIP actions, I believe this will take at least decades to achieve, as it requires fundamental shifts in institutional values and approaches, which are very difficult and resistant to change.
Many of the changes required will themselves need many more incremental changes over time that will not really be recognized by those impacted. New tools and methods will need to be developed to apply a consistent process and build common consistent understanding. It will be critical for central agencies to adjust their past and ongoing practices and processes for a gradual alignment toward government-wide consistency.
Whether the level of consistency can be achieved and be adequate with First Nations and align with stated perspectives of self-determination will have to be judged against community‑level perceptions of the degree to which changes have made a significant difference in their lives every day.
In the engagements with our communities in our region, the connections between UNDRIP and the situation in the communities were not apparent to many participants. Many people saw communities as at the bottom of the mechanism of control, and many felt it was beyond the communities and the leadership to actually make the transition from the situation today toward a vision of self-determination.
In the action plan, some accountability measures are identified through the action plan and the advisory board that will be established to provide advice to the government on relative progress. This process needs to be expanded to include a way to measure impacts on Indigenous citizens in each of the provinces. An Indigenous and First Nations accountability framework must be driven locally, provincially, regionally and nationally. Only through a bottom-up process of providing inputs and tangible measurements will everybody be able to see measurable changes which have impacts or result in real change.
The relative exclusion of some provinces and lack of provincially based UNDRIP Act legislation and action plans in the Atlantic region may hinder work toward making the necessary changes needed to allow the federal government to make the changes it desires in the areas of jurisdiction in which it has powers but requires cooperation of provinces to implement actions collaboratively with Indigenous and First Nation partners.
A lack of cooperation and goodwill to execute the action plan has always been a challenge in Atlantic Canada, as provinces are not always willing to allow the ongoing evolution of self‑determination in a way which will work for Indigenous communities and people. Many non-Indigenous people are worried that the changes will have negative implications. For there to be ongoing improvements in knowledge and collaboration, inclusive and transparent actions must be fully understood and supported by all citizens.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our brief today.
The Chair: Thank you for that, John G.
We’ll now move on to questions from senators.
Senator Sorensen: This is a bit of an unusual question, but it’s near and dear to my heart, so I’ll see how much information you have on this. I’m asking this to both of you because of your regional interests. You both represent a region.
I have the privilege of living in Banff National Park. My question is this: The action plan calls for Parks Canada to work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis to:
. . . support implementation of Indigenous systems of law and governance through a spectrum of governance, decision-making and management approaches in areas of interest including, but not limited to: economic and employment benefits; tourism; management plans; protection and conservation strategies; establishment of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas; access; archaeology; research, and restoration initiatives.
Do either of you work directly with Parks Canada in any way, and what would you like to see from them?
I saw the archaeological dig near Louisbourg a couple of years ago. That was fascinating. Sorry. I digress.
Mr. Paul: I don’t work directly with them, but I deal with people who actually work with Parks Canada on the development of these new approaches. I find that they’re pushing the boundaries of trying to incorporate Indigenous values and perspectives into what’s occurring in the park. It really demonstrates their level of commitment and dedication to actually trying to make UNDRIP real within the park, which makes it more real for people.
If Parks Canada is able to make it work, why can’t some other department make it work? That’s how I look at it.
I know that in Prince Edward Island, they’re developing a new park, even. I’m looking at that and seeing that maybe there are some good synergies and good karma within Parks Canada to actually figure out some of these things, because they’ve had longstanding relationships and understand fully the archaeological and historical significance of things within the park, and that creates the fundamental connection to allow this growing sense of doing the right thing.
Maybe they should be the standard.
Senator Sorensen: I appreciate that.
Ms. Slett, I’m coming to you, but I just want to say that I know they’re working really hard on it across this country, and any park or historic site I’ve been to with that focus, it is a huge education for all Canadians and the rest of the world. That is what I say about this tourism: It’s the truth. They’re telling the truth.
Ms. Slett, I don’t know if you have any comments to add from British Columbia.
Ms. Slett: Yes, we’ve been working with Parks Canada. There’s a large body of work still to be completed. We’re working on things like feasibility studies and some timelines for commitments for protection by 2025.
As coastal communities in British Columbia, we have a long history that is deeply embedded in protecting our homelands. We’ve been doing a lot of things around marine-use and land-use planning. A lot of that does include some work with Parks Canada.
Certainly, it’s an opportunity to advance reconciliation, and for us, it is critical to marine protection in those areas.
Senator Sorensen: I appreciate both your comments. Thank you very much.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses.
Mr. Paul, I have two questions. Sir, your organization, the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, has done a lot of work on climate change initiatives, fisheries management and policy advocacy. As an advocate for Indigenous communities in Atlantic Canada, what are some of the key policy changes your organization is pushing for at the national and provincial levels, and do these align with or differ from the aims of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act?
Second, I’d like to know a bit about your forward-looking socioeconomic impact projects or initiatives and how you might use the UNDRIP Act to drive those projects.
Mr. Paul: I think the most important part is developing common standards of measurement for everything. One of the most important things that I’ve learned from dealing with government is the vagueness of words, and that words translated into different languages can mean different things. The problem with that is that people understand things differently. Unless you have a consistent measuring stick — whether it’s inches or centimetres or the metric system or whatever — people will never understand how something has changed from here to there.
With UNDA, the big issue I had was that it was everything for everybody. Why didn’t we just take one piece and focus on that, get it done and then go to the next one? That would be logical, but instead they created more vagueness — pages and pages of it — and 115 actions, where the layman or someone from the general public is asking, “Well, what does that mean?” If you don’t have a measuring stick for what it means and you’re not able to define it, you will never understand.
In terms of our communities, our priorities and what we advocate for — our economic self-determination, language, culture, housing, infrastructure, health services — those are things that communities see and believe in every day. Until you improve those things, it’s very difficult to convince somebody who’s potentially homeless that this UNDRIP principle means anything. It’s very difficult.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.
Chief Slett, given your leadership roles, how does the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs integrate your environmental concerns with the advocacy for Indigenous rights, especially in light of climate change and the goals of UNDA? Similarly, what long-term impacts do you expect or hope to see from UNDA being implemented as you envisage it should be?
Ms. Slett: Well, with the implementation of UNDRIP, we would see improvements to First Nations’ social detriments, which include health and well-being, economic development and housing. But there are other things that are key and critical to our communities, such as the protection of lands and resources and the inclusion of working together around health and emergency preparedness. Our communities are on the front lines of climate change. We see the impacts on a daily basis here as it affects the estuaries, food sovereignty and food security in our communities.
By working together and co-implementing, co-developing and working in partnership with Canada, we would be able to see improvements in these areas.
Senator Coyle: Welcome, and thank you very much to both of our witnesses. Your testimony is very helpful to us. My first question is for Chief Slett. I just want to make sure I have it correctly. I know I can read it in the transcript, but just for this moment — you were talking about the concerns that you had with the implementation. If I heard you correctly, the first one was regarding the timeline. I think you said that perhaps the timeline was too tight — I’m not sure.
Second, I believe you mentioned a lack of funding for the capacity to actually participate, as well as an issue regarding transparency.
The last point that I captured was that things announced in UNDA were actually already in the works; it’s like old wine in new bottles. Am I right? Could you elaborate a bit on those things?
Ms. Slett: Yes, I definitely can.
The concerns included that the expedited timeline was too short to be able to have our communities provide meaningful, fulsome participation directly from First Nations, and lack of capacity funding for First Nations to be able to adequately participate. Funding is a barrier to participation in things such as this.
On the lack of transparency and how First Nation priorities were incorporated into the action plan: There were many priorities. How were they incorporated? What was the work behind that to identify those as priorities? We would like to have greater clarity on that.
Regarding the content taken from existing commitments and pre-existing initiatives, there was concern that they were shaped into some of those priorities.
With regard to the funding example, British Columbia — the provincial NDP government here — provided a provincial government fund for B.C. First Nations to participate in the implementation of UNDRIP. That was a $200-million fund for First Nations to apply to, to assist them in the work. There are examples that we can look at.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for that.
If I could ask Executive Director Paul a question as well: I believe you were talking about the advisory board. Could you elaborate a little bit further on that?
Mr. Paul: I think it must figure out very early on what the focus is and what the measurement is going to be, and establish it so you can actually test it, because everything gets criticized all the time — you either didn’t measure it correctly or you’re not using the correct information.
One of the things that I found in the last little while is that Statistics Canada now has the Indigenous Peoples Economic Account that records all the things that Indigenous people and communities are doing and tracks that information. It’s a dollar‑figure collection of data and performance measures, but it looks like an interesting tool for trying to figure out the best data to use to make those determinations as to whether any of the actions actually resulted in something. Everybody wants to see the outcomes, but when you have vagueness and no data to measure it with, it’s like looking at a pot of stew and trying to figure out how many potatoes are in there. You’ll never know until you eat all the potatoes, basically.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. That’s a good image.
It’s interesting that you mention Statistics Canada. First, do you find the existing data being collected by Statistics Canada to be at least a useful baseline? And might there be a partnership with Statistics Canada, to have them collect and select data that is identified by groups like yours for the future?
Mr. Paul: I know that Statistics Canada has an expert advisory panel that develops indicators and data indicators across everything that Statistics Canada does. It’s incumbent to focus on the action plan, but to figure out what part of the action plan is the best one to start with and then have the advisory experts at Statistics Canada work collaboratively with Indigenous groups to come up with specific indicators over years so you can go back and see. The way it’s done in the departments is through the departmental expenditure plan, which is a business plan tabled to Treasury Board every year. Put something in there and then people will notice.
Senator Coyle: That’s very helpful.
Senator Busson: I would like to ask a question, mainly to Chief Slett, if I could.
I’m new to this committee, Chief Slett, so bear with me as I work through the question that I would like to ask you. I noticed you were present when the other witnesses were talking about their perspective. One of the comments was around that person’s view of one of the action plan measures: the abolition of the Indian Act.
Being from B.C., I have some appreciation of the diversity amongst nations, and especially the diversity amongst nations on the West Coast — the amazing environment that you exist in and how incredibly pristine and beautiful it is, but also how isolated your communities can be.
With your unique perspective, I would love to get your impression or opinion on this. We heard that some people were very much in favour of abolition of the act. Others said that some nations were concerned about the implications of losing the act; I think that was the way one of the witnesses put it.
Could I ask you to provide your opinion on that subject, from your unique perspective?
Ms. Slett: Thank you for the question. It’s a hard question to answer because we are all unique and different nations here in B.C. There are over 200, and some of them are well developed in terms of their governing processes within the communities.
In terms of the abolishment of Indian Act, I can only speak for my own community. We’re doing a lot of work in a process called [Indigenous language spoken]. I shared that the term means “to turn something around and make it right again.” Part of that includes the development of a self-determination agreement, how we work together with our Gvilas — those are our laws — and Western federal laws.
When I think about conversations with elders here in the community, there have not been any Indian Act policies that have been pulled together for the benefit of Indigenous people, when we consider the membership rules and how it was originally put in place to phase out Indigenous people. Indigenous people would become part of the national collective.
These are things that are concerning to my community. We know who the Heiltsuk people are and ought to be able to include them as part of our communities. We have young families and young people in our community right now who are affected by the second-generation cut-off. They live in the community, go to the school here and attend our potlatches. They are part of the family collective. They are not recognized as Heiltsuk people under the Indian Act but certainly recognized as Heiltsuk people under our Gvilas.
Our communities are in different places, and so many parts of the Indian Act have been harmful to our communities. Those are the things we want to move away from.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Martin: Thank you to our witnesses.
Mr. Paul, in your opening remarks, you described the implementation effort as “ad hoc and disjointed.” You’ve already given us some examples of what could be done. Could you offer advice? In what way do you see this current approach being so disjointed and ad hoc?
Mr. Paul: The big problem is that there isn’t consistent commitment from each of the federal departments. It’s something people are doing from the other side of their desk or as an extracurricular activity. It doesn’t work that way. Unless you have somebody who is accountable to the Treasury Board or somebody at the centre, they don’t necessarily pay attention. Unless that specific person in the department is at a DG, or director general, level or above, it gets lost in the larger machinery of the department. If Treasury Board made it a requirement that someone had to report in every department relative to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan, that would become a specific requirement that they would not ignore.
Unless those things get built into the business planning processes of the departments, it becomes something they do for a couple of years and then forget about it. That’s kind of how it works. Unless it gets built into the structural financial planning and processes of departments and their own business and strategic plans, they’ll never get it done. If people at the centre don’t tell them to report back on these things, it doesn’t get done. It’s just the nature of the beast.
If the message went out that you — or whoever it is — are now the person at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC, Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, Fisheries or any department, this is now the person who is accountable and has to come back to us every year and report what’s going on, that makes more logical sense than giving “the 115 commandments,” I’ll call them, to the departments and telling them to follow them, with no consequences if they do not.
That’s the real problem. Unless it stays at the top of the government’s priorities, it falls down year over year, and at some point it disappears off the list.
I worry that the action plan had such a significant, important day when it was made into law; that was when it reached its pinnacle, and now it’s going this way. I worry that it created great expectations in our communities that things would improve. If that’s the pinnacle, the action plan will be going this way, not that way. That’s why I keep emphasizing an indicator‑based framework, so somebody living in Halifax or Vancouver could read a report and say, “Oh, that’s what happened?” and actually see it. It’s very difficult for people to understand and put these things in their own personal context. As I said, it went up fast, it got done, and now it might kind of be fading away — though hopefully not.
Senator Martin: You mentioned the centre, and that’s important as well: who is at that centre when there are multiple departments involved. To try and coordinate that, it has to be that right centre, whether it is to Treasury Board or someone —
Mr. Paul: There were many ways to focus things. In the last five, six or seven years, they’ve introduced gender analysis consistently across the departments in all policy and program decisions. Why not have something related to UNDRIP along the same lines? The central agencies were the ones involved in actually doing this, so they need to be involved in the execution of it and connecting it back to the accountability of the individual departments. If it’s not on the top 20 list of the department, the department isn’t going to do it. Then they see there are no resources allocated against it; it’s a double whammy to them.
Senator Martin: This question is to Chief Slett. British Columbia has been in the middle of its UNDRIP action plan since 2022, so one year ahead of the federal plan. I’m wondering whether you feel there are some things from the B.C. experience that could inform and help the federal government.
Ms. Slett: Yes, definitely. Part of it is the funding. The provincial government had put together a $200-million fund for communities and nations to participate fully in the process.
The other is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in B.C. is 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 Nation communities and organizations.
An important piece here is the secretariat is led by a deputy minister doing all of this work and coordinating with other senior government tables.
Another further piece with respect to how we could look at the B.C. example — each federal government department could 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 we’re not creating redundancies or unduly burdening First Nations.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: The time for this panel has ended. I wish to thank you both for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to the clerk. We’ll now suspend our meeting briefly before going in camera for a brief discussion.
(The committee continued in camera.)