THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 21, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9:01 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 Métis peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, senators. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece; the former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. 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 Nation, Inuit and Métis peoples from across Turtle Island.
Before we start our official proceedings, there is a housekeeping motion I would like to have someone introduce. The motion is this:
That notwithstanding usual practice, pursuant to rule 12-17, the committee be authorized to hold this morning’s meeting without quorum, if necessary, for the purposes of receiving and publishing evidence, provided that two committee members are present.
Senator Coyle: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Coyle, thank you.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Prosper: I’m P. J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today, we continue our new study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of 2021, also known as the UNDRIP Act. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.
With that, I will now introduce our witnesses: from the First Nations Financial Management Board, Harold Calla, Executive Chair; from the Indian Resource Council of Canada, Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer; and from the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business, Matthew Foss, Vice‑President, Research and Public Policy.
Thank you all for joining us today. The witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I will now invite Mr. Calla to give his opening remarks.
Harold Calla, Executive Chair, First Nations Financial Management Board: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to be here today.
First, I want to thank the Senate, because it was one year ago that the amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act made it through the Senate and received Royal Assent in 78 days from the time of its introduction. It was some sort of a record, I understand. Perhaps that’s a model that can be followed. We do appreciate it, particularly in the context of the UNDRIP Act, because the institutions are the most successful piece of Indian legislation in the history of Canada. We have over 360 optionally scheduled to the act, and we provide the capacity development and support services that allow First Nations to find a foothold into the mainstream of Canadian society. What has been accomplished by the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, I suggest, needs to be reflected as an approach that warrants further consideration in the implementation of UNDRIP. I think UNDRIP does require that we start building institutions and structures that other orders of government in this country benefit from to support our communities.
I also want to point out that I was present in New York when Canada withdrew its objection status. I was proud to see it happening. However, I also want to remind everyone that Canada is not like other colonized countries. Other colonized countries don’t have the benefit — I call it a “benefit” in this particular case — of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 to draw from. Other countries do not have section 35 of the Constitution, nor section 25 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When Canada withdrew its objection status, in my view, it accepted and is bound by the requirement to respect those provisions that form the relationship between Canada and Indigenous people. I think it’s important that UNDRIP recognize that we’re not just talking about nonexisting rights; they are existing rights that need to be accounted for. Most of us tend to forget about 1763 and the Royal Proclamation. It’s even referenced in section 25 of the Charter of Rights, so I think it’s important that this action plan start with the recognition of those principles that are reflected there.
The action plan needs to recognize and consider the supports and tools needed to build Indigenous capacity to become self‑governing within the federation of Canada as an equal order of government, not just as a manager of the delivery of programs. Much of the action plan’s elements respond to the dire social and economic conditions that presently exist in our communities, and they should. While ISC and CIRNAC have been given the bulk of the responsibilities, it’s hard for me to see how they can succeed while working within their existing authorities. Canada must be willing to change the fiscal and financing arrangements that support Indigenous governments with the resources needed to fulfill their obligations. It will remain a significant challenge to address the poverty in our communities if Indigenous governments remain on a pay-as-you-go program delivery pathway. We need fiscal powers and a clear path to access the spectrum of capital available to other individuals and governments.
The action plan needs to allow for the investments Indigenous people need to pursue the development of institutions and agencies that support their governments. We see these institutions and agencies that are present for non-Indigenous governments. In the UNDRIP Act, we have moved beyond delivering programs and services developed by others. This action plan has to be something that recognizes that. We need to move beyond the stovepiping that exists in this city far too often. It’s not just ISC and CIRNA that need to be at the table. UNDRIP needs to be a government-wide initiative that is consistently followed by all in this country. We need Finance, Treasury Board, Privy Council, Canada Revenue Agency, Natural Resources, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General and Justice, to name a few. They need to be engaged in a joint development process to contribute to the policy and legislative changes necessary to successfully create an action plan that implements UNDRIP. Supporting expanded fiscal powers, recognizing the barriers that prevent our governments from accessing their full range of capital needs, is a prerequisite for any successful implementation of an action plan.
There have been some very positive steps in the last couple of years — I want to recognize that — taken by Canada through ISC, CIRNAC, NRCan and Finance. They’re a step in the right direction, but while we are examining new laws, what about the old ones? How do we change the barriers that exist because of the legislative policies that exist?
I think we need a grand plan with significant investments into our communities, governments and economic development. Canada’s economy and the Indigenous economy are intrinsically linked. We need to start examining the impacts of not moving beyond the status quo, as we have seen from recent settlements what happens when that is done. We’re going to be following up with a much more substantive submission to this committee regarding the action plan and look forward to having the opportunity to see its outcome.
I will close by saying that I think this is the first time since 1982 that we have chosen to engage in a discussion about Aboriginal rights and title and the relationship with Canada rather than deferring to the Supreme Court of Canada to provide guidance. It’s an historic step, and I wish us all much success in doing that.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calla. I will now invite Mr. Buffalo to give his opening remarks.
Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council of Canada: Thank you very much. I want to acknowledge I’m on Treaty 7 territory.
Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to speak today. It’s a very important and timely topic. My name is Stephen Buffalo, and I am president and CEO of the Indian Resources Council of Canada. I am from Maskwacis, Alberta, and I currently reside in Calgary. I grew up with pumpjacks and the industry around me. I am also chairman of the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, which currently has a $3 billion fund that is backstopped by the government and utilized to guarantee Indigenous involvement and participation in the oil and gas natural resource sectors.
Our organization represents over 130 First Nations, mostly from Alberta and Saskatchewan, who produce or have a very direct interest in the oil and gas industry. We also have members from Treaty 8 in British Columbia, as well as Manitoba and Ontario, and a few First Nations in Quebec and the Maritimes. Our mandate is to advocate on behalf of our members for greater involvement and participation in the oil and gas sector, which has benefited and continues to benefit many of our nations. We also advocate for federal and provincial policies that will enhance resource development opportunities for our members.
The UNDRIP topic we are discussing today is very relevant and important to the work we do. I am sure the members of the committee know that First Nations have historically been excluded from economic opportunities in this country. We have little to say about the activities taking place in our reserves and traditional territories, even as they continue to diminish our treaty rights. The landscape is changing somewhat, but there is still some way to go. UNDRIP currently presents an opportunity for us to benefit from resource development. Allow me to comment on two main points regarding the implementation of UNDRIP by Canada.
First, Indian Oil and Gas Canada is a special operating agency under Indigenous Services Canada with a legal and fiduciary mandate to develop and manage oil and gas resources on our lands pursuant to the Indian Oil and Gas Act and Regulations. Unfortunately, I’m here to inform you that IOGC has been negligent in fulfilling these mandates in terms of managing and developing oil and gas resources and ensuring that we receive fair and profitable terms from the exploration of our resources. This has resulted in many lawsuits against Indian Oil and Gas Canada related to the breach of their fiduciary duties.
Our First Nations technicians are currently involved in amending the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations to make them more compliant with the interests of First Nation and to reform IOGC to allow First Nations to exercise greater control and self‑determination over their own resources and lands consistent with the principles of UNDRIP. Neither IOGC nor anything to do with the Crown’s oversight of oil and gas activities on reserve is mentioned in the UNDRIP Action Plan, even though, as an agency under the federal responsibility, it should be evaluated as a matter of course. This item should be added to the UNDRIP Action Plan going forward. We’ve selected a new CEO of Indian Oil and Gas Canada, selected by a handful of chiefs of First Nations of the Indian Resource Council, and I urge this committee to address the role of IOGC and First Nations and oil and gas producers in your future deliberations relating to the implementation of UNDRIP.
My second point relates to the implementation of economic reconciliation. The UNDRIP Action Plan identifies several measures under Natural Resources Canada, including increasing participation of Indigenous peoples in natural resource development and exercising federal regulatory authority, which is currently regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator. IRC members are very likely to be the ones to take over the Canada Energy Regulator functions because a lot of energy development happens on our traditional territories. First Nations communities would like to be closely consulted on what these plans are. To date, Indian Resource Council members have not been engaged or consulted on any of these plans, which are so well articulated in UNDRIP. It’s imperative to consult meaningfully with Indigenous people when they are impacted by resource development. Only the First Nations that are active in pursuing oil and gas development on their lands can speak for themselves.
The Indian Resource Council is also very glad to see the announcement of the federal Indigenous loan guarantee program and to see that it was sector agnostic or inclusive of oil and gas. As chair of the AIOC, we have seen tremendous opportunities come to communities because of such programs. However, more could be done to advance economic reconciliation, including better regulatory policy that facilitates oil and gas development in Alberta and Canada instead of blocking it. Because that sector provides IRC members with tangible benefits, it is no good to have access to capital to participate in energy projects if there are no projects being approved and advanced.
It is also important that Natural Resources Canada engages with the natural resources sector on these action plans. From what I have seen, a lot of the action plan is tackling what federal departments are or are not doing to abide by UNDRIP. It seems to be an internal bureaucratic exercise. It is much more important to the members to have action on implementing UNDRIP with our industry partners. I would like to see Natural Resources Canada use its resources to facilitate that dialogue and action between the First Nations communities. We need to find solutions to improve federal policies together — the government, industry and First Nations. If industry is left out of the conversation, I don’t see much confidence that we will achieve the principles of UNDRIP with regard to economic reconciliation. The IRC has development meaningful partnerships with industry, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, to ensure our goals within the parameters of UNDRIP are aligned. This is another example of economic reconciliation.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Buffalo. I will now invite Mr. Foss to give his opening remarks.
Matthew Foss, Vice-President, Research & Public Policy, Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business: Taanishi, Matthew Foss dishinihkaashoon. Hello, my name is Matthew Foss. I am a member of the Métis Nation of Alberta, and I am speaking to you today from Treaty 6 territory. As vice president of research and public policy for the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business or CCAB, I want to thank all of the distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to provide comment on implementing the UNDA Action Plan.
As many of you are aware, and as I mentioned at my last opportunity to engage with this committee last August, CCAB builds bridges and works to support Indigenous businesses and the growth of the Indigenous economy through collaboration with corporate Canada and government parties. CCAB is a voice for Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs. We acknowledge Justice Canada’s release of the UNDA Action Plan, particularly that this is a starting point for future collaboration and engagement with Indigenous partners to action these measures. We look forward to continuing to support these efforts however we can.
Canada’s economy relies heavily on the resources and development of Indigenous lands, yet Indigenous people live predominantly in poverty. The lack of effective Indigenous involvement in Canada’s economy is holding Canada back. The Indigenous economy represents 2% of Canada’s economy despite Indigenous peoples being 5% of Canada’s population. Canada’s natural resource exports were valued at $422 billion in 2022, comprising 58% of the value of Canada’s total merchandise exports. Natural resources alone account for about 20% of Canada’s GDP. These estimates do not include the value to Canada’s economy of other activities that happen due to being located on Indigenous traditional lands or that are dependent upon those lands and natural resources for their existence. Effective and meaningful Indigenous participation in Canada’s economy is a necessary condition for the implementation of UNDRIP, for reducing poverty in Indigenous communities and for a successful Canadian economy.
Most action plan measures that relate to Indigenous businesses and economic development have only just begun. CCAB was proud to join with other national Indigenous economic organizations in Winnipeg last week at a first-of-its-kind forum to discuss priorities for advancing Indigenous economies. A key priority of CCAB’s membership is action plan measure 79, which deals with efforts to award Indigenous businesses a minimum of 5% of the total value of all federal contracts. The Government of Canada’s recent reporting on Indigenous procurement spend for fiscal year 2022-23 indicates that, on average, over 5% was awarded to Indigenous businesses across all federal departments. While this is a clear indicator of progress, there is a lack of transparency around how these totals were reached. Indigenous businesses continue to express frustrations about dealing with government procurement opportunities, suggesting that the spirit of this target has not truly been met.
More accurate reporting and understanding of how much of this is actually flowing to Indigenous businesses is required to ensure effective participation. This need for transparency is far broader than procurement reporting, extending into areas such as trade negotiations and export development, revisions to intellectual property regulations and even efforts to support Indigenous women’s entrepreneurship. These challenges surrounding transparency hinder both accountability and meaningful collaboration. At times, Indigenous organizations engaged in these efforts have had the ability to actively follow the negotiations, receive relevant updates, review draft materials and generally be informed enough to provide feedback. Yet most of the time, this is not the case. Instead, we often receive 5- to 10-minute updates in meetings and are expected to provide feedback without sufficient context to draw from or the details to examine. This is not an example of true partnership or adherence to the principles outlined in UNDRIP.
There is also a need to broaden the application of several of these action plan measures. An example is measure 27, which discusses a service transfer policy framework that would involve a transfer of “ … design, delivery and management of services from Indigenous Services Canada to Indigenous partners.” CCAB views it as essential for economic and business services and funding to be considered in this. That should include the devolution of the administration of the Indigenous Business Directory or verification of Indigenous businesses to Indigenous organizations, specifically CCAB, which has already built an effective Indigenous procurement marketplace that is relied upon by both Indigenous businesses and corporate Canada.
An even more pointed comment about action plan implementation is that the measures currently set out to include Indigenous perspectives into the things that Canada has already decided to do. This is counter to the spirit of UNDRIP and reinforces the problems. Indigenous communities are forced to add their voices to predetermined solutions using predetermined processes. How is that consistent with self-determination?
With all of that being said, thank you for the opportunity to lend our voice to this incredibly important topic, and I look forward to any questions you might have. Maarsii.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Foss.
We will now open the floor to questions from senators, and I will start off the questioning. This question is for all witnesses.
In multiple studies across the committee over the past several years, many witnesses have identified the lack of consultation and co-development on a number of matters. In testimony before the committee, Minister Anandasangaree noted that the Westminster system, including parliamentary privilege, confines Canada and prevents the sharing of actual draft legislation with Indigenous organizations or parliamentarians before it is finalized. Have you encountered challenges related to the way the Government of Canada understood and/or undertook consultations, cooperation and co-development? If so, could you please describe them? Can the current process be improved to ensure Canada upholds the rights of Indigenous peoples under domestic and international law?
Mr. Calla, we’ll start with you.
Mr. Calla: Thank you.
I’ve experienced some of those challenges in the work I’ve done with the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, the First Nations Land Management Act, and the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act. In each of those cases, we faced this challenge. We found ourselves in a position where we started talking about what the legislation was intended to do. We started to craft language that could be interpreted as contributing to drafting instructions, and we were certainly made aware of some of the legislative proposals that were being contemplated, if not the wording. It takes a lot of effort in order to do that.
I would hope that, in the future, there can be more open conversations without breaking the traditions of Parliament, but there needs to be a conversation that allows us to understand what is being talked about so that we’re not being presented with solutions that we haven’t helped develop. We need to see the conversations that we’re having result in changes in policy discussions that occur at the table. That will be the true test.
The Chair: Mr. Buffalo, would you care to respond?
Mr. Buffalo: Yes, thank you.
Further to Mr. Calla’s comments, in all aspects, a lot of the First Nations members of the Indian Resource Council seem to feel that there has been a lack of consultation with them.
Quite honestly, that’s what we’re here for. We’re here to help coordinate and work with the federal government to have proper conversations with the leaders, which eventually gets to the technicians, which is probably the best thing to provide further input. Unfortunately, our organization has really stood up to some of the federal policies, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 primarily, seeing that they were going to hamper our First Nations economic development. When we don’t play along, we don’t get consulted or told about some of these issues. That’s really difficult. But moving forward, a plan would be, even if it’s outside some of the previous precedents of parliamentary actions, to have regional discussions in each province and reach out not only to the leaders but to the business communities as well to ensure that everyone has a say as to the action.
The most imperative thing is that the First Nations need to decide, not the organizations. I truly respect the role of the Assembly of First Nations, but they sometimes seem to intercept a lot of the actions coming down, and I don’t think they reach the grassroots, which is really where the impacts are. I’m hoping we can all work together as advocacy organizations to ensure that the messaging is getting out there and that the nations can decide for themselves. That’s what I’m hoping we can achieve. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Foss, do you have any comments?
Mr. Foss: Thank you for the question.
I would suggest to you that the work starts far before legislation becomes drafted. As I mentioned in my comments, the challenge becomes getting into discussions and working groups and actually seeing the proposed language and getting an opportunity to actually have a seat at some of those tables early enough in the processes to make sure that the work that’s coming forward to parliamentarians is actually drafted with the spirit of collaboration in mind and that it’s not an afterthought to go out and talk to Indigenous communities, Indigenous businesses and Indigenous rights holders once something is proposed; rather, it’s co-developed with them and then brought forward.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all three of our witnesses this morning. I have a question for each of you, so I’ll try to be fairly quick with that.
Welcome back, Mr. Calla. You congratulated us at the outset, but we should be congratulating you on that incredible progress that was made a year ago.
You said we need a grand plan. What we’re talking about here is the UNDRIP Act Action Plan. You’ve said that you will be sending us a lengthier submission, but when you said we need a grand plan, we need to acknowledge that Canada is special in that it’s not like every other colonized country. We do have a constitutional recognition of rights in section 35, and we also have the Royal Proclamation of 1763. When you said that we need a grand plan and resources dedicated to that plan, you also mentioned that it requires all government hands on deck, not just the usual suspects from some of those that you have listed. Could you speak a little bit more about getting the government hands on deck that will be required to really put together that substantial grand plan in partnership with Canada’s Indigenous peoples?
Mr. Calla: Wow. I wish I had the silver-bullet answer.
I think it starts with Canada recognizing that rights holders are also governments and, as such, in my view, they have an entitlement to the respect that comes from being a government participating at that level. I think you need to have a government-wide acknowledgment of what being a government means. What are fiscal powers? How are they going to be shared? How do we exist within the federation of Canada?
As has been mentioned, we need to devolve the programs and services into Indigenous and rights-holder organizations, but in order to do that, we need to invest in building the capacity of those groups to be able to manage their responsibilities as self-governing First Nations. In some cases, we need to build the capacity for First Nations to come together and share the delivery mechanisms as well as the challenges and benefits of taking on responsibilities. I will use the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia as an example of that kind of thing. I will use the example of the borrowing pools that were established under the First Nations Financial Management Act by the First Nations Finance Authority, which just recently moved beyond the $2-billion mark in supporting First Nations’ capital needs.
We need to have all of those kinds of things recognized, but we also need to recognize that we need to move at the speed of business if we’re going to achieve economic reconciliation. We don’t have the luxury of time. The poverty I see in communities — I’ve been to Attawapiskat twice in the last year. We have to find solutions for those communities, because they have no hope, otherwise.
The UNDRIP Act Action Plan provides that mechanism. We need to look at how we can fund First Nations governments as governments and not as pay-as-you-go kinds of entities. We need to be able to monetize federal transfers, and we need access to fiscal powers that we can raise money against to be able to support and respond to the community needs in ways that are beyond the existing capacities of ISC or CIRNAC based on their parliamentary appropriations.
Senator Coyle: Thank you so much, Mr. Calla.
Mr. Buffalo, you’ve spoken about the Indian Resource Council of Canada’s participation in the oil and gas sector. That’s clearly a very important part of our economy. Is the Indian Resource Council of Canada, with its concerns about participation in economic reconciliation, working with or is there a counterpart to you working on some of the new energy developments, particularly in Western Canada? I know wind and solar are becoming big in your area. I’m wondering whether that is something your council or a council associated with yours would be involved in as well.
Mr. Buffalo: Thank you for the question.
We definitely see a little bit here and there as to some diversity into the sectors. Of course, a lot of the members are starting to get a handle on the projects that are in and around their territories. Of course, through the AIOC, we’re seeing an opportunity where the proponent or industry is coming forward in a good partnership with the First Nations. Of course, we support those initiatives. As we see, given this federal government’s approach to oil and gas, and its development, we have to look at those opportunities. But there are limited resources to the First Nations really coming and having an advocacy group to support those mechanisms. When there’s an opportunity for First Nations to participate, not only for jobs but equity ownership, I think we have to be prepared to support that.
Again, there are certain areas where we’re still getting the paternalistic treatment from the government on what First Nations can and can’t do. As we move forward, supporting technical advancements, not only through oil and gas but just creating energy for communities — energy poverty is a real thing, and the last thing we need is some of our communities not having the natural gas or power to support their community and infrastructure.
All of those things are very important, and they tie together. Yes, we’ve started as oil and gas, but at the end of the day, we’re still trying to help and advocate for better, cleaner resources as well through renewable energy.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Mr. Foss, thank you for your work as well. You mentioned Indigenous procurement and the issue of transparency being a matter that concerns you. It’s something I’ve raised during Question Period in the Senate, and I haven’t really had a satisfactory response to my concern, which was basically expressing the concerns that have been raised by Indigenous leaders. This is a very powerful tool for stimulating and encouraging economic prosperity in Indigenous communities and among Indigenous businesses. Could you tell us how you think this could be done better in terms of transparency and any other ways that you think the government needs to step up and fix this issue of Indigenous procurement?
Mr. Foss: Thank you for that question.
Yes, we’ve got lots of ideas on how to do this better. Maybe we can send you a more fulsome response that would get into that, but there are areas around more transparency and reporting that get into the details of auditing how some of these contracts are performed, particularly those that involve joint ventures, to ensure there is Indigenous participation to the full extent that is suggested in the proposals, the responses to the proposals and the contracts that are awarded. There could be additional administrative simplification in the contracts that make it easier for Indigenous businesses to understand and participate. There could be access to funding and insurance that would help allow Indigenous business to participate more in some of those contracts. We’ll get you full details, because this is something that we spend a lot of time doing research on. Thank you very much for the question and the opportunity to interject a few thoughts on that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Senator Tannas: Thank you to Mr. Foss, Mr. Buffalo and Mr. Calla for being here. I rushed to be here and was here early, as somebody remarked. I don’t mean this to denigrate anybody else, but it’s great to be here with people of action that have accomplished great things in your respective organizations that are lasting, meaningful and have made a huge contribution.
Mr. Calla, you talked about a grand plan, and I have long admired and been a student of the Marshall Plan after the Second World War. It started with a vision and then worked backwards to where everybody is today. Part of the process had to be an acknowledgment of the brutal truth of where we were in order to set realistic plans to move forward to a vision of where we wanted to be. Some years ago, I think it was Senator Sinclair who actually pointed to UNDRIP and said that is the vision of the future. This grand plan is what we’re trying to build, and it’s going to be multigenerational. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it. There is a vision, and UNDRIP provides us with that. I’m really excited about that as I think about the future.
I’m going to step out a little bit here and think not about the progress that’s been made in the Trudeau era, but the post‑Trudeau era — we can all debate when that will happen. Would you agree that there is a lot to do for a government of any stripe? In fact, governments of particular focus over the coming generations will be able to make important contributions in their areas of interest and in their areas of natural expertise. Could you talk about that, just briefly? I wanted to get that on the record. You’re such distinguished people who have been working so hard for so long. Could you give us a message of hope that others might draw on in the future?
Mr. Calla: I can try. I think we’ve always approached this as being a non-partisan issue. This is an issue that impacts all Canadians in a variety of forms. It will impact our economy going into the future in a significant way if we can address an UNDRIP Action Plan that can demonstrate our ability to improve the lives of our Indigenous communities.
The International Sustainability Standards Board and the accounting profession is now going to require reporting for publicly traded companies. This reporting is going to influence both the access and the cost of capital coming into this country. We need to look at how we’re going to expedite project development in this country. That’s going to involve and require Indigenous participation and leadership.
It’s wonderful that we’ve been able to look at energy transition in a way where we have potentially three battery plants occurring in Canada, but where is the raw material going to come from? It’s theoretical at the moment, until we come to some arrangements with the Indigenous communities in whose traditional territories these minerals reside.
These are matters that cross all political stripes. We can’t sustain our way of life in Canada if we don’t sustain and grow our economy and transition our economy to the new realities. That’s what gives me hope — that all Canadians will see the benefit. This is not just an Indigenous issue any longer. This is a Canadian issue, and it deserves the attention of all parties in how you address this. We have found that, as a result of the efforts we’ve been asked to undertake to get things like legislation passed in 78 days, we have to go to all political parties and speak to them about the future and about how they might be impacted.
I’m optimistic that we can get there. I know that, as you approach an election, there are always some challenges in that process, but we will get past it. I’ve lived through a number of them, and we will come out of it better off in the future. I believe that all political parties will have an interest in ensuring that the Canadian economy can sustain and grow, and to do that, they’re going to need Indigenous partners. But to get there, you need to make the investments to have the capacity of these rights holders to be able to sit at the table and participate as an equal partner.
I saw what happens when they’re not ready, in British Columbia in the oil and gas sector and, as a member of the board of Trans Mountain, I’ve seen what can happen if you engage more fully. I would encourage members of the committee to look at the ESG report of Trans Mountain to understand what economic reconciliation can look like. Thank you.
Mr. Foss: Thank you for those observations. As you so correctly pointed out, this is going to be a multigenerational challenge going forward. It’s taken us several generations to get to where we are and create many of the problems. We do see progress, though. We see progress in that more conversations are happening. This conversation today is an example of that, and the opportunity to continue to express some of the challenges and also to engage in dialogue.
As Harold pointed out, the need for more capacity funding and the need to ensure that Indigenous communities have the resources available to them to actually engage productively in the conversation is going to be critical going forward, but this is not a single stripe political issue. This is, as you correctly point out, something that every party is going to find ways to advance going forward, find initiatives and projects that appeal to their constituents that help to address this, as long as they recognize and remember that this is something that affects all Canadians.
When the Indigenous community does not do well in Canada, all Canadians suffer. We see that from the fact that the largest proportion of our incarcerated population within Canada is Indigenous, obviously, suggesting that Indigenous people are creating challenges for society when the social challenges that exist for Indigenous people, largely due to poverty, aren’t being addressed. We all need to address this.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Mr. Buffalo: Senator, thank you for your comments.
Looking at where we are today, I too am very optimistic. We have a lot of work to do in our communities to understand what direction we want to go in. A lot of us, our communities, are trained with this bureaucratic — I call it “soft communism” under the Indian Act. Of course, that needs to change.
You have to remember that UNDRIP was initially a human rights act. My uncle — I call him my other dad — Willie Littlechild was very instrumental and is a hero of mine. Going forward, for example, the Indian Resource Council has an MOU with the federal government that was drafted in 1996, and one of the areas we were supposed to do from this MOU was assertion of jurisdiction so that the First Nations communities regulate and have their own land laws to move forward. With UNDRIP, it coincides with that. I think it works hand-in-hand.
We’re seeing development now, of course, with the AIOC. I want to thank Jason Kenney, the premier of day, who initiated that. It was supported by Premier Danielle Smith for the First Nations to take advantage of what is happening. I think this will really lead into resource revenue sharing with provinces to get away from that bureaucratic system of the Indian Act. That’s probably the biggest thing for me.
We see the federal equalization payments and how Alberta is really financing this whole country. When I hear of $22 billion being sent from Alberta to Ottawa, and Quebec getting $13 billion of it, I kind of scratch my head a bit, because I know that First Nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan could probably use a little more as opposed to the pennies on a dollar that comes through what I call a communistic system under the Indian Act. We need to do better than that.
Going forward, I think the optimism is there, and the UNDRIP is a key point to that. As mentioned by my colleagues here, poverty is rampant. We have all these social pathologies that we’re struggling with. To have Indigenous leadership show up to a function such as this is really hard, because they’re trying to do what they can for their communities. To take them away from their community is very difficult.
But again, being optimistic, there’s a lot of work that can be done. Even internally in our communities, we need to do a lot of work to embrace this opportunity. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question for you, Mr. Buffalo. How can Canada improve resource development policy and regulations, and can you describe the barriers you mentioned in your presentation?
Mr. Buffalo: It comes down to consultation with the grassroots. We have a committee called the joint technical committee, which is modernizing the Indian Oil and Gas Act. With modernization comes the current trends and opportunities in the oil and gas sector. This committee is primarily made up of the technicians of each committee that has produced oil and gas or has an interest in it. These are very educated people who work with industry and understand the Indian Oil and Gas Act. That’s the approach we need on a lot of these issues, not only in oil and gas but in all areas. When you have your grassroots technicians at the table, as mentioned by Matthew, I think we get a firmer grip on moving things forward together. It’s imperative that we’re not told but we are participating in these discussions and policies. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Buffalo.
Mr. Calla, in your view, what institutions and structures will enhance the Indigenous economy more broadly?
Mr. Calla: I think we need to recognize the gaps in our access to capital and we need to address those gaps. We often talk about capital as if it’s a single thing. It’s not a single thing. There’s a whole array of needs that First Nations have — risk capital, structured finance, equity — and we need to be able to address those kinds of issues. We need simple things like the ability to get bonding to participate in major contracts. These are the kinds of measures that I think we need to have. I know the FMA institutions, the financial authority, is beginning to work on those kinds of issues around the ability to bond. With Trans Mountain, if you look at the reports, there was $6 million in contracts given to join ventures and Indigenous partnerships. Many of those found joint ventures as a requirement because they couldn’t get bonding. We need to be in a position where we address what we see as the impediments on the ground to support economic development.
Access to capital is a big one, but capacity building is a bigger one. The First Nations Major Projects Coalition is another key organization. I call it an institution, although they’ll take exception to it. They need to be in a position where they can go to communities that don’t have the capacity that exists in-house in the Major Projects Coalition to support those communities and consider the matters before them on natural resources extraction and development on their traditional territories, and also to support more initiatives like the ones on the East Coast. How do you implement treaty rights? How do you implement Supreme Court decisions? Well, you showed us in the east. You bought Clearwater. Those are the kinds of things that we need to be able to focus on and support. That transaction occurred because of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the ability of those communities to come together and understand that they needed to work together to get access through the finance authorities of the resources they needed to buy the fishing licences. It took a while to build that capacity, and it took Membertou extending itself to all the people in the region to begin to bring people together to have a conversation and present a united front. That’s the kind of thing we need to do right across this country.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Calla.
The time for this panel is complete. I don’t see any other hands up, so I wish to thank you all for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them to our clerk within seven days.
I would now like to introduce our next panel of witnesses: from Indigenous Disability Canada, Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer, who is joining us online; from the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association, Marilee A. Nowgesic, Chief Executive Officer; and from the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, Merrell-Ann Phare, Executive Director, who is joining us online.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will have opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I will now invite Mr. Belanger to give his opening remarks.
Neil Belanger, Chief Executive Officer, Indigenous Disability Canada: Simgiigyet, Sigidim hanuak, K’ubawilxsihxw. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak briefly in regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Esquimalt and Songhees peoples, from whose unceded territories I am presenting from today, and to recognize the territories from which you and others are participating.
I am a member of the Lax Se el Clan in the House of Nikate’en of the Gitxsan Nation. I am the Chief Executive Officer of Indigenous Disability Canada and the British Columbia Aboriginal Network on Disability Society, a national Indigenous disability organization providing services for over 31 years.
In Canada, approximately 27% of the general population identify as having a disability. However, the rate of disability for Indigenous peoples is significantly higher, at approximately 35%. This equates to over 600,000 Indigenous people of all ages having a disability in Canada.
As the committee knows, Indigenous people with disabilities experience poverty at a higher rate than that of non-Indigenous people, higher rates of unemployment and incarceration, anti‑Indigenous racism and disability discrimination across all sectors. They are residential school survivors and family members of survivors. They live daily with the trauma and damage caused by government systems while continuing to experience assimilationist policies at all levels for being Indigenous and for being disabled.
While the declaration’s stated purpose is to provide a shared road map for Indigenous peoples and governments to work together to strengthen relationships and Indigenous rights, this cannot happen if the voices and inclusion of Indigenous peoples with disabilities are not fostered and acted upon. Despite the declaration becoming law in 2021, we still see that the voices and directions of Indigenous people with disabilities are largely ignored in relation to legislation and policies affecting their lives.
Recent examples include Medical Assistance in Dying, MAID, particularly under track 2 relating to persons with disabilities not at end of life. Despite the majority of Indigenous expert witnesses expressing their concerns about MAID through testimony to the various committees and that all the expert panel reports stated that no tangible Indigenous consultations had taken place in regard to MAID, it continues to expand. The federal government only started an Indigenous engagement process on MAID in the fall of last year, seven years after the original legislation came into force and two years after the inclusion of track 2.
Another example is the recent funding announcement in the federal budget pertaining to the Canada Disability Benefit. Despite years of consultation with Indigenous and non‑Indigenous persons with disabilities and the promise to raise working age persons with disabilities out of poverty through the CDB, the funding and mechanism to receive support implemented by the government falls far short in its ability to achieve the benefit’s stated purpose and the expectations and needs conveyed by the disability community.
While there are many other cases I could note, those are only two examples of how the current shared road map and journey that Indigenous peoples with disabilities are on with the government have progressed, seeing the government asking for directions but then taking a totally different route to a totally different destination. If the declaration and its stated intent is to be realized, that has to change. It is vital that the government ensures, without exception, that the voices, directions and needs of Indigenous peoples with disabilities are recognized, respected and incorporated in all interactions, from the community level to industry to government. Failure to do so will make the implementation of the declaration merely performative — an “it looks good on paper” initiative.
To assist the government in the development and implementation of the declaration, and to ensure the rights and inclusion of Indigenous people with disabilities are realized, we would make the following recommendations:
One: To compliment and strengthen the declaration, the federal government should work toward entrenching the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Canadian law.
Two: The government should establish a mechanism to support Indigenous youth with disabilities, as our future leaders, to participate nationally and internationally in relation to all the UN conventions to which Canada is a signatory in order for them to bring the Indigenous disability lens.
Three: Create a national Indigenous disabilities advisory council to government consisting of members with lived experience, Indigenous-specific disability organizations and families.
Four: Provide mechanisms to ensure the voices, needs and concerns of Indigenous peoples with disabilities within federal correctional institutions are in place, monitored, and acted and reported upon.
Five: Increase data collection on the specific needs and barriers faced by Indigenous peoples with disabilities within Indigenous communities and urban and rural centres.
Six: Develop ongoing national public strategies to combat anti-Indigenous racism and disability discrimination, created in partnership with Indigenous peoples with disabilities.
Seven: Ensure Indigenous-specific disability programs and services are adequately funded and expanded to meet the diverse and unique needs of Indigenous persons with disabilities.
Eight: Develop mechanisms to ensure the participation of Indigenous peoples with disabilities in the development of the declaration and other government initiatives who are otherwise overlooked or traditionally minimally involved.
Nine: Entrench the requirement of accessible communication in all government engagements and meetings, including the provision of Indigenous sign language, ASL, LSQ and captioning.
Ten: Recognize and solicit the involvement of Indigenous hereditary systems, leadership and their members, who are often overlooked or not recognized.
Eleven: Ensure that all actions are proactive, not reactive.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I look forward to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belanger.
I will now invite Ms. Nowgesic to give her opening remarks.
Marilee A. Nowgesic, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association: Thank you very much.
First of all, I would like to recognize that the land which I am currently on is the land of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people in this territory. I am originally from Fort William First Nation near Thunder Bay, Ontario and I am from the Eagle Clan.
I am currently the Chief Executive Office of the Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association. The Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to participate in the examination of the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Canadian Indigenous Nurses Association has been, for more than 45 years, the longest-standing Aboriginal Indigenous health organization in the country. Prior to that time, Indigenous nurses could not apply to a nursing faculty without disenfranchising. That is why we don’t know what our numbers really are until we get to the business of that particular identity issue. However, CINA has had more than four decades of experience and wisdom regarding Indigenous ways of knowing, Indigenous nursing knowledge, and the well-being and cultural safe practices in our nursing schools.
Throughout its history, the organization has engaged in activities from research to policy, education and consultation, and we have put forward many reports to respond to each of those. CINA has made valuable contributions to the variety of Indigenous health initiatives over the years and will continue to do so with our partners such as Indigenous Services Canada’s First Nations and Inuit health branch, as well as many other stakeholders both in non-government agencies and the private sector.
CINA has advocated for cultural competence in nursing to enhance and to achieve culturally safe, appropriate and trustworthy care for Indigenous clients and their communities. The goal of cultural competence and cultural safety is to improve the health outcomes of Indigenous people through culturally safe approaches and excellence in nursing care. Indigenous nurses have been combining their Western education with a firm grounding in their own language, culture and healing traditions to shape the field of Indigenous nursing knowledge and to ultimately shape the context of nursing school practices.
Indigenous nursing knowledge is an integral link to what we know to allow for nursing practices that respect and maintain the accountability to our ancestors and our knowledge holders by allowing for alternative approaches in nursing and the traditional knowledge of our Indigenous people so that they don’t have to worry about what it is that they are providing to that context. Indigenous nursing knowledge informs the ongoing development of resources, research and evidence-based programs, and that is why we are excited for when the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will fall into place.
The one mechanism that we introduce to our partners and stakeholders at the table who are non-Indigenous is, of course, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. While we focus on the health section, there are many other Calls to Action that stand on that health section — numbers 7, 10, 57, 62 and 63. While I convey to my partners at the table that this is not our exercise, this is one that we will hopefully be invited to be at the table to ensure when we write our 500-year work plan. Yes, I did say 500 years. When we look at this, we look at the seven generations. If a generation is approximately 75 years, that’s our 500-year work plan. When we are looking at the longevity of it, we note that the pathway that we’ve provided in understanding what the United Nations declaration will do will liaise back to the responsibility of the TRC’s Calls to Action. I have with me all the time my little guide to make sure I know what we need to be doing in our homework.
When we look at many of the new relationships that we’ve built because of the United Nations declaration and the TRC, we also look at the commitments made by NGOs such as the Chief Public Health Officer’s health professional forum table, where I sit with 24 other NGOs looking at their commitment, what they have done, how they have related to this, how they have linked it and how they are measuring it, the private sector and our international allies such as the World Health Organization, the International Council of Nurses, and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
CINA has established a solid track record in working to improve the health outcomes of our people. We are recognized for our expertise in cultural safety, nursing practises, schools of nursing, and policy direction and research. I’m proud to say that one of our champions, the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing, has finally, after many years in their existence, looked at Indigenous education in nursing schools. We own that data. They have to ask for our permission in order to utilize it.
CINA is able to meet most of its required deliverables as a national organization under our current funding agreements with federal, provincial and territorial governments. We have an existing relationship with looking at the health human resources environment and how dire it is. The engagement of the federal departments that were not part of the previous strategic plan with CINA have now been invited to the table to look at their commitment and how we might measure it.
CINA’s strength as an organization is in looking at the better examination of the United Nations declaration. We’ll be looking at the improved governance structures and the updates to policies. We are looking at a policy review and the significant gaps that currently exist, the revamped and improved working committees, both internally and externally, at all levels of government, and the increased capacity and extensive network that we have of experienced contractors, consultants, knowledge keepers and traditional people across the country.
While we know that there are four areas that relate to us in regard to the declaration, it is through these levels that we must recognize the Indigenous protocols, jurisdiction and authority that is granted to our respective leadership, including our health care providers. Their rights are more than just someone’s interpretation of a medicine chest. We look at it much more deeply.
It is by that method that we also see how we’re going to be able to collaborate where we have been with the Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada and the commitment made by the Canadian Medical Association to seek the knowledge and the advice that they ask for from CINA in their strategic work. The CMA is the national voice of physicians, but they have announced their commitment to a formal apology and how they’re going to link that to the United Nations declaration.
The one thing we need to remember, and something that I always bring to the table when we’re discussing health, is systemic racism. It is the system; it is not the people. We also take into consideration the social determinants of health and allow that to be a base scale for how we’re going to research, examine, analyze and report back to all levels on what we see as the next steps.
We are a sovereign nation. We have inherent and treaty rights to self-determination and self-government, and similarly goes for Indigenous nurses. However, with the current format, with the current environment, we are afraid because that health and human resource is depleting. How are we going to fill that gap? How are we going to face the identity issues that nurses face? We’ve seen the calamity. We want to be proactive versus reactive. We want to be able to address who is an Indigenous nurse as we bring them into that traditional knowledge and into that healing knowledge.
We have systems grounded in Indigenous culture, traditional beliefs and values. Are they reflected in the declaration? Yes, they are. They’re just not spelled out that way. We recognize traditional health. We recognize the need for a nursing curriculum that reflects Indigenous nursing knowledge. That is going into the nursing schools and, fortunately, is also going into the medical schools.
We know that there is currently poor coordination between the provinces, the territories and the federal systems that is causing unnecessary barriers for Indigenous clients, and this is specific to something that Neil has already mentioned, data collection. One of the things that I’ve always said is we cannot go to the table without a lot of numbers. I’m not going to give you a lot of numbers at these tables because I can’t rely on them. I don’t know what the source is. I have to look back at those sources. We know that in 2018, with the University of Saskatchewan, we were able to do a survey. We had roughly 11,000 First Nations, Inuit and Metis nurses from coast to coast to coast. However, we have to battle that number again because of identity fraud.
We want to look at establishing, enabling, sharing and the collaboration of data administered by the provinces and territories. We’re working with organizations, such as FNIGC, that are mandated by the First Nations chiefs in this country, but there are similar mechanisms that are with the Métis and the Inuit people also. We are currently working with the Alberta First Nations Institute on governance, and we’re looking at how to improve data management. Where do we store it? How much is it going to cost? Who is the steward of it? Who is shopping in our shop? What are they taking when they come into our shops?
Other areas this impacts when we’re looking at data collection is the critical health care services such as that which we are currently working at in cancer, midwifery, mental health and especially programs that will benefit the Indigenous Languages Commissioners being able to put a lexicon together for our people and for our non-Indigenous nurses to also learn.
In conclusion, we want you to know that the declaration has to be flexible enough to honour the unique direction of Indigenous nurses in this country and that the Government of Canada will work with us to ensure that, and we look to work with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to advance the Government of Canada’s commitment to the United Nations declaration. We know that, through this table, there will also be the need to look at our intellectual property. There are things that we have done for hundreds of years which will not be written down, which will not be part of our classrooms and which will remain solely with us. We’re looking to work with our partners in ways that support reconciliation and also respect your needs for federal assessment.
Thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Nowgesic.
I will now invite Ms. Phare to give her opening remarks.
Merrell-Ann Phare, Executive Director, Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources: Good morning, senators. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today. I am on the executive team of the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources. I’m calling you today from Treaty 1 territory in southern Manitoba, also the homeland of the Red River Métis.
Briefly, CIER is a national charity. It’s an environmental capacity-building charity created and continued to be directed by an Indigenous board of directors, including people you know very well, such as Phil Fontaine, who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission creation under the Residential School Settlement Agreement; and Manny Jules, the First Nations Tax Commission Chief Commissioner. They created it 30 years ago under a collaborative model. I am on the executive. I’m not Indigenous, but our staff is made up of 20 other Indigenous and non-Indigenous professionals. Thirty years ago, they saw the need for collaboration as a key pathway for Canada, and our organization is a model in that regard.
I want to make four points today, and they all have to do with one particular part of implementation of the Action Plan. It’s where the rubber hits the road. It’s called “co-development.”
Since 2010, I have been involved in 11 different co‑development processes across Canada with the Government of Northwest Territories as chief negotiator, also with the Government of British Columbia. I am currently involved in Bill C-61, which is the First Nations clean water act co‑development process with Canada. I am not here in this capacity today, but I am chair of the International Joint Commission that deals with Canada-U.S. water management, and we have a reference on water pollution in the Elk Valley in British Columbia. The heart of that reference is international transboundary co-governance between Canada, the U.S. and the Ktunaxa Nation. Also, I have six other initiatives through CIER, the organization I started with, that we’re doing across the country right now called the Collaborative Leadership Initiative.
I’m going to get into the weeds a little bit about co‑development because at its heart, the UNDRIP commitment, the promise of UNDRIP, is about consent within the context of Canadian sovereignty, which is difficult. It’s very legal, and it’s very political. This should matter to you because the solution to the problems or the issues I’m going to bring up is political will, ultimately. This is within your choice to be able to address some of these specific problems that get in the way of progress on implementing the Action Plan.
The Action Plan talks about co-development. It mentions the word 78 times. It gives a definition. The definition doesn’t really say what co-development is, but it says it reflects the highest end of the consultation and cooperation spectrum, and then it goes on to say some other stuff about it being substantive, collaborative and consensus-based. I want to point out right away that, in my experience, this definition is, respectfully, incorrect. Co‑development is not part of, in my view, the consultation spectrum. Consultation is the legal duty that the Crown governments have if they want to do something that might impact Indigenous rights. Consultation is ultimately a rights-infringement process. Co-development is a government-to-government process. It is about collaborating as governments to do something that is in the best interests of all those governments together. It is about negotiating an issue of common concern. One government might want to do something that might impact the other, so they decide to build it together so that it is the best common solution. It is not a consultation process.
The second issue that I want to bring up is that it is clear from the Action Plan that there is a high level of confusion among all of the various departments. There is no whole-of-government approach to this. It’s mentioned 78 times, as I said, and there are 58 different mentions of legislation that is going to be developed or revised or built or something like that. Depending on the department that is making the commitment or the legislation being contemplated, the commitment runs the gamut from, basically, trying to do amendments that might strive to reach a potential better world to, actually, full co-development. There is no consistency in the commitment to developing legislation together. You have to remember that you as legislators know legislation is where the rubber hits the road. This is where the commitment and authorities rise from governments. If it’s not in legislation, it doesn’t happen. This is why co-development, particularly around legislation, and getting it clear and right about when it applies and when we’re going to do it, is so incredibly important. The idea should be that if you’re going to potentially impact rights, then, fine, do consultation, but if you want to build legislation or policies or issues in common concern or common interest, use co-development.
The third thing I want to mention is that in terms of co‑development of legislation in particular, as I said, I’ve been involved in six different pieces of legislation that have been co‑developed in different parts of the country. We’re constantly bumping up against this issue of cabinet privilege, of various cabinet confidentialities and various forms of privilege. Much more research needs to be done into how those protocols can be adapted to deal with a government-to-government relationship with Indigenous people in drafting. For example, government negotiators start with a mandate that they get from cabinet. That mandate sets the box about what can be discussed. Right then, you’ve gone off the track of co-development. You need to be able to allow the governments to talk together about their goals prior to getting a mandate and then jointly submit a mandate request to cabinet. The issues of confidentiality come up, and I have a number of examples I can give you. I won’t use my time on that, but we can talk about it in questions if you’re interested.
The final point I want to make is that this is all a matter of political will. I can tell you that my very first involvement in anything to do with co‑development was being involved in co‑drafting of legislation in the Northwest Territories which, to this day, Canada still says is impossible to do because it violates the rule that the Department of Justice is the only place where laws can be drafted. In the Northwest Territories, the Department of Justice and all the Indigenous governments and all their lawyers and a neutral drafter sat together and drafted legislation, all hands on the pen. My respectful view is to disagree with Canada on this point and say that we can, in fact, do this. It is where it needs to happen, but more research needs to be done within the Canadian federal context on how to modify the status quo of all of these long-standing rules that could use things like confidentiality agreements or other tools to eliminate these old‑time colonial roadblocks to government-to-government creation of tools that advance reconciliation and the ultimate promise of the UNDRIP.
I will stop there, and I look forward to any questions you might ask me. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Phare.
We will now open the floor to questions from senators, and I’ll start it off.
Mr. Belanger, in your view, what additional measures should the Action Plan include to better respond to the needs and rights of Indigenous people with disabilities, and what improvements should the federal government make to better engage this population in the ongoing development, implementation and evaluation of the Action Plan?
Mr. Belanger: Thank you for the question.
I think I touched on it in my words here, and some of the other witnesses have spoken to it as well. This has to be an all-of-government approach. It can’t be just handled by one ministry or by a couple of ministries, looking at ensuring that the voices of Indigenous people with disabilities are heard and acted upon. The government has struggled in that regard, in reaching out to Indigenous people with disabilities, often leaving it up to community leadership or representative organizations rather than getting to the grassroots level. This is a recommendation that we and others have put in all the time, that there has to be community engagement with the members living with disabilities so that their voices can be heard.
When we’re working with a population that is living in systemic poverty and often has limited access to communications or even knowledge of happenings by the federal government when they’re looking at engagement or consultation — whatever they call it at that particular time — it’s difficult for people to become involved. The government has to make a concerted effort to reach out to Indigenous people within First Nations communities, Inuit communities and Métis people in urban and rural centres, and they have to put that into practice.
Thank you.
Senator White: I have three questions, one for each of the witnesses. I’m not sure if I’ll have time, but I’ll start.
Mr. Belanger, in your presentation, you recommended that we develop this advisory council on disabilities, and I’m very interested in that. What do you think that would look like? More importantly, how would that feed into the Action Plan as it relates to UNDRIP to ensure that your concerns and the needs of the disabled community are met? Can you explain a little bit about that?
Mr. Belanger: Absolutely.
I think a committee could be struck for all of government or within each ministry that the government has, and I don’t think there should be any ministry that isn’t looking at having an Indigenous disability advisory committee.
As we’ve seen largely across Canada in the federal sector, Indigenous peoples with disabilities have not been engaged properly in a number of things. There’s nothing in UNDRIP that would exclude them. As with most things, UNDRIP has the “and” Indigenous people with disabilities. There is not a lot of content about disability within the declaration itself, and that’s a mistake. That’s where we have the opportunity to make sure that Indigenous people have a voice in all actions of government and in designing all future legislation and the declaration itself. If we don’t do that, how can we actually have something that is representative of Indigenous people with disabilities?
We can’t leave it up to leadership. We can’t leave it up to organizations like us. We need people who have the lived experience that can actually talk about the barriers they’re facing and move forward, whether it’s with the co-design of a process when we’re looking at adapting legislation or creating new legislation. This hasn’t happened. When it does happen, it happens very infrequently, and we’ll have disability advisory committees that have one person who is Indigenous, maybe, and that is a problem, because we’re missing that voice across all of the federal government.
If this declaration is truly going to be an all-of-government initiative, then we need to get to the voices of Indigenous people with disabilities across all the ministries, and their voices have to be respected and acted upon.
Thank you.
Senator White: Ms. Nowgesic, I was very interested in your presentation and the fact that you highlighted that it’s the system that is racism, not the people. I think that is telling of society in general. I’m curious, what do you think your best advice is? What resources would we need to ensure that nursing schools can provide cultural competency in an effective and meaningful manner so that we can break the system and actually be the people that we are?
Ms. Nowgesic: We are currently doing this right now. We’re working with the nursing faculties across the country to really encourage them in a very strong fashion to insert Indigenous content into the nursing faculty curriculum at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Those will correspond to the undergraduate levels of Indigenous nursing knowledge and, similarly, in graduate levels.
What we need to do is undo what they’ve been taught, which has been a very British way, and include images other than the one that we are aware of in Florence Nightingale. I just have to give that graphic, and everybody starts laughing. What I want to really say is that here is what you also need to consider: When she was standing at that window with that lamp, who was standing on the outside of the window going to grab herbs and medicines? It was likely a traditional knowledge keeper, a person with Indigenous ways of knowing.
We need to be able to look at how we’re going to invoke the current nursing leadership sector in Canada to address this. They don’t have the answers. If you try to go to them with Indigenous nursing knowledge, they kind of look at you like deer in the headlights, and I’m thinking that this is not rocket science. We have been telling you for years how we want to do it, and how we want to do it with you — not without you, but with you.
By looking at northern clinical programs and reintroducing them, looking at the corporate knowledge of our nurses who have left the workforce and saying, “Here is what the nurses need to do; here is how they need to be prepared for pandemic; here is how they need to look at personal protective equipment,” and not invoking fear into our communities. How do we also provide time for the community people to come to the table to discuss their important needs in their language?
Thank you.
Senator White: Ms. Phare, I was really interested in your presentation about co-development and cabinet confidences, and I do relate and understand, having some experience with what the federal government has deemed cabinet confidence and privilege as well as co-development. I don’t know if co‑development actually is what it is when we look at it from an Indigenous perspective. My question is, having said all that, is the Action Plan a good plan to move forward to implement UNDRIP?
Ms. Phare: I would have to say yes, with a qualification. If you think of co-development as what Indigenous people have said, “Nothing about us, without us” — that’s the heart of Willie Littlechild — it is about working together, so you need to frame how to work together. What they’ve done is said that co‑development is good. That reads collaboration and partnership, and those are good things. The issue is that it’s very confused. We’re in the transition to figuring out what co‑development means, and my fear is that it is settling down to the status quo, which is that we don’t really want to change anything about the way we do business but we just want to consult better. That’s actually not the heart of co-development. The heart of working together is that we show up to the table as equals, we recognize each other, government to government, and we build the thing we need to build together. It might be your legislation or it might be my policy, but if we build it collaboratively, it becomes something we all support. That’s where the true reconciliation happens.
Currently, there’s huge confusion in the action plan about how co-development is used, when it is used and what is supposed to be done. A tonne of work needs to be done to make it clear how it applies to everybody and in what context you use it in and why. Then, you will need to change key things about when Indigenous people can be involved. If the mandate process stays the same, the MC process stays the same and everything stays exactly the same, then there’s no difference. It’s just a bigger bow on this very limiting box. I think it’s good so far, but we need more work.
My only other point about co-development is that there are a number of examples — I’m personally involved in 11 different situations that get at the details of how to do co-development well. There are a lot of lessons learned. I would suggest that there could be quite a bit of research done on pulling from those examples and others in terms of getting at these colonial roadblocks that still exist. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I have more than one question, so I’ll try to go quickly.
Mr. Belanger, thank you very much for the work you do. We’ve been aware. You’re good communicators. We hear about your work.
We’ve talked about how there was limited or no meaningful input on the MAID legislation. There’s huge disappointment around the Canada Disability Benefit. As you said, UNDRIP looks good on paper, but — and you’ve given us some really substantial recommendations. I’m wondering two things about the recommendations you have articulated here today.
First, have you sent or articulated these recommendations to government? If so, to whom in government?
Second, within the Indigenous rights-holding organizations here in Canada, those rights-holding organizations, I would presume, are very keen to also represent the rights of Indigenous people living with disabilities. Can you tell us how that might work, or how it currently works, in terms of the relationship between your organization, your members and with those national Indigenous rights-holding organizations in Canada?
So the first question is about government, and then the second is about Indigenous governments.
Mr. Belanger: Thank you, senator, for the questions.
We have forwarded most of the recommendations to government and to the Senate as well. We sent our proposal to have the UNCRPD entrenched into Canadian law a couple years ago to both the Prime Minister and the leaders of each political party. We received some support from the Senate, as you may know, endorsing that recommendation to the Prime Minister and to cabinet. Other recommendations that we put forward have gone to the government as well, whether it be through Indigenous Services Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada — it all depends — and to provincial entities as well.
In relation to the leadership organizations, we do work with many of them, some more than others. We work with the Assembly of First Nations on a number of issues from time to time and have different resolutions passed by them. As they’re a political body and we’re more of a grassroots organization, some of our perspectives are often different in relation to disability. We’re more wanting to hear from the people we serve and what grassroots people feel, but it is life on the ground within the community. We work with the Métis Nation, particularly here in B.C. We’ve done some work with ITK and have worked in the past with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, as well. We just had a meeting with CAP, attending the National Air Accessibility Summit that was held in Ottawa a week or so ago. We’ve had a number of opportunities to work with NWAC as well.
We keep up those relationships, and each of those organizations do have some priority for their members with disabilities. I don’t think it’s enough priority for any of them, and I don’t think it’s enough priority for the federal government, or the provincial or territorial governments, either, when it comes to Indigenous disability. There are so many priorities that Indigenous people have in relation to so many other things that disability often falls to the side. That’s why we need it as a priority. But even within the federal government, Indigenous-specific programming is almost non-existent. When we look at the disability initiative, I think we have a portfolio of a million dollars available for 635 First Nations across Canada, so funding and support are very limited, and it’s often difficult when you’re dealing with all the other priorities and pressures within communities that leadership are facing to really raise that. But yes, we work with those organizations to try to bring it forward.
Senator Coyle: Ms. Nowgesic, I was interested to hear everything you had to say. It sounds like a really important moment here in terms of the ability to influence change and build capacity in these nursing schools, which are critical to the nursing cadre across Canada. You’ve also talked a lot about bringing in traditional knowledge, et cetera.
I’m not sure if I heard you say it — or maybe I’m just trying to hear it — but I’ve done some work in the past with groups that are trying to bridge the worlds in the ways you are. They are trying to implement something called “two-eyed seeing.” Is that also relevant to the work you’re doing? If you know what I mean by “two-eyed seeing,” is it something you’re trying to influence into the nursing schools?
Ms. Nowgesic: When you look at bridging, bridges tend to collapse, and the interpretation of the two-eyed seeing approach that Elder Marshall gave to us has been miscommunicated several times. When we see that at the table, we’re dollars to doughnuts sure that they didn’t get it right, so we have to go back to rebuilding the bridge. What did you fail to understand? What didn’t you get in that concept? How is it that you’re going to be able to do that type of learning environment?
When we’re looking at bringing forward those traditional approaches, I need to be more specific. They need to be regionally driven. What happens in B.C. is not applicable to what will happen to the Mi’kmaq people, to the Maliseet people, to those in Newfoundland and Labrador or to the people in Nunavut, et cetera. It has to be a different approach that is done there, and it has to be measured with the indicators that relate or resonate with our people.
Having said that, the one barrier that we face in looking at how the nursing profession is going to be a part of this implementation of the rights in the declaration is ensuring that when the young people are finished their nursing program, that they’re able to go back to their communities instead of being caught up in the barriers of being told they don’t have the experience or that they can’t go to work right away. There is the National Council Licensure Examination, the NCLEX; we have to get rid of that. It’s causing such barriers and limitations to our kids and francophone students. We have to remove some of those practices.
So two-eyed seeing is only one approach in the traditional practice, and there are many others. There is the medicine wheel, the Inuit societal values, et cetera. The B.C. people and the Haida Gwaii people have similar approaches in their teachings based upon the regional specificity they need for their people. So even the treatments and schooling have to reflect what the people’s needs are.
Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much for that.
Ms. Phare, I’m curious. This point on co-development is pretty fundamental. It’s come up here again and again. When I was on the Arctic Committee, it came up when we were actually in the Northwest Territories with that talk about each holding a pen, not just one person holding the pen, but being at the table holding the pen came up at that time.
Is there any research that has been done to look at best practices in co-development? Is there any research under way currently that gets at what we’re talking about in terms of true, authentic co-development in the way that you’re talking about and in the way that it was practised, as you’ve said, in the Northwest Territories and perhaps in other jurisdictions?
Ms. Phare: We have what is called all hands on the pen, which is the way it was first described to me, and yes, there has been. There’s a piece done out of the Polis Institute on ecological governance. I was one of the authors on that — it was called Collaborative Consent — a number of years back.
My organization, CIER, has done a summary of co‑development models that we haven’t formally published, but I could probably send it to you. We’ve looked at all of the examples we could find, what were the hallmarks and what were the best things that were done with that. We have been doing this research because we’re practitioners of this. We’re involved in actual co-development processes and trying to push for the most substantive form of relationship we can find. We bump up against the details of where are the barriers. To the extent that’s useful, we could see if we could send it to you, but that latter part isn’t formally published. We think there’s a need to have something formally published, though.
I was legal counsel for AFN on Bill C-61, and I believe they have a statement of co-development principles or co‑development stuff that they have generated also.
In the Action Plan, under the Métis section, there is a commitment by Justice Canada with various departments and agencies. It says to:
… co-develop nation-to-nation, government-to-government processes for the co-development of legislation and regulatory initiatives . . . .
That’s a perfect commitment, but it’s just only with the Métis section. I don’t know why that wouldn’t be just the commitment of Canada, led by Justice, to get it clear with all of the Indigenous nations. It might be slightly different for each, obviously, distinctions-based, but that’s the commitment that is needed so that all the departments follow a consistent approach with a rationale that is clear to outsiders.
That is a long answer. If you want me to send you some stuff, I can.
Senator Coyle: We’d love it.
The Chair: If you could, that would be great, Ms. Phare.
You provided an example from the Northwest Territories. How does legislative development differ in B.C.?
Ms. Phare: The legislative process is the same. You have the internal, government-sponsored portion, which is the in-house part, where the sponsoring minister, usually with a mandate from cabinet, decides it’s going to get a legislative goal met. Then there’s the external parliamentary process or the legislative process that involves first, second, third reading. Co‑development modifies the first part, not the second part. Both N.W.T. and B.C. have the same structure. Everybody has the same structure, basically. What the difference is in N.W.T., they can be a little more nimble, maybe they’re a little bit smaller, but the solution is found in cabinet giving the direction to do it a certain way and saying that we want co-development to be done. When I was involved in co-development in the North, that’s what cabinet did. They gave the permission to the minister to co‑develop, and that’s exactly what would be required in B.C. I think that’s how it largely went. The B.C. example I was involved in was the creation of a co-governance table on fresh water where I was the convening facilitator to build that table. That was a direction from cabinet.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Ms. Phare.
That brings us to the end of our panel. I wish to again thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please feel free to do so to our clerk within seven days. We’d be happy to receive anything that you send us.
That brings us to the end of our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)