THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 3, 2023
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with videoconference this day at 9:31 p.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for consideration of possible amendments to the Rules.
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I am Diane Bellemare, a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of this committee. Before we continue, I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I’m Senator Jane Cordy, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Hello. Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Before I recognize our special witness — who we are very pleased to welcome today — I have some information to you.
First of all, I am very pleased to be back with you after being away for a while. I am back to full health and fit to continue our work. I would like to thank Senator Batters, who replaced me during my absence. I have observed that she was fair and effective in managing time, which I learned by watching her from home.
The steering committee met on September 19, and we decided to continue hearing testimony because there were three committees whose witnesses we did not hear from, namely, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. So, we decided to try to hear from them before completing our full report.
As well, we have prepared a tentative agenda, which we will present to you when the Senate returns on October 17, to discuss the way forward.
First off today, we welcome an expert from several committees, former senator, the Honourable Raynell Andreychuk. She has been a judge, a lawyer and a diplomat. She also worked at the United Nations in the area of human rights.
[English]
She is also an important defender of democracy in Ukraine.
Ms. Andreychuk was appointed in 1993, 26 years before she took her retirement. She worked to establish the Human Rights Committee that she chaired for eight years. She also chaired the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee for many years. We are really happy to be able to receive some light from her experience in both the Senate and committees. She was there in the former Senate, with its bipartisan kind of rules; she was also there when we started to modernize the Senate with more groups, and so forth. She could see the changes.
It’s going to be interesting to hear from her. You can address us for a short moment and then we’ll have questions.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk, former senator, former committee chair, as an individual: Thank you. I understand there are some improvements in the Senate. I no longer touch any of the equipment, so let me know when you’re switching over if I’m doing anything wrong.
Thank you for having me. With the break for all of us during COVID, we’ve all reflected on our lives and where we go from here. It is a great privilege to come back, having reflected on my many years in the Senate — the good, the bad, what needs changing, and how you, in your positions, can now improve the Senate because I think that has been an ongoing process. It hasn’t just been one change. As new senators come in, and as experienced senators, we tend to want to do better. I think you’re in that process right now, trying to improve the Senate. I laud you for that.
I’m going to take a few moments to remind all of us how the role of the Senate started. Basically, we all took an oath. I’m going to say “we.” I apologize for that, but it’s easier to talk about “we the Senate” — and by that, I really mean the years I was there and the years that you are now here — to incorporate both.
We all took an oath to represent our regions, to look at minorities and to do so in the best interests of Canada. That is the guiding principle that we should always live by. It didn’t seem as important when I started. However, it became more and more important as changes around us took place and I would go back to that essence. How do I serve the people of Canada? What is my role? I took an oath and I should be loyal to it. That doesn’t mean I left all the things I did, but I started to see a new role for myself, one that depends very much on collegiality, on working together and on putting the Senate first because whatever you do in the Senate reflects on me and whatever I do reflects on you. Hence, the team work and the collegiality. That really shows up in committees. We’re all there to put forward the views of our constituents, of ourselves and to come to some consensus.
There are many other ways in the Senate that you can do your individual things. There are inquiries and Senators’ Statements. I also see podcasts coming up. I hope you’ll be creative and innovative in your own capacities. I notice some senators are now clustering and doing other things, which means that what you are, you continue to convey.
Within the committees, of course, is how the committees should work. It started out, of course, with a small group of senators, many years ago, working on issues. It was a small government and a small group. As it expanded, the work shifted to the committees. The work is really reviewing legislation, adding to it, amending it and following it through. That’s where I want to make some comments.
The committees were set up to really review legislation. We added the prebudget and pre-study areas to keep up with all the complexities and changes in the government. The most efficient way is to track ministers, ministries, scrutinize bills and be the real second sober thought on that. We can expand pre-studies. I was always worried what the pre-study was like in the negotiations just before Christmas and just before June. We should be aware of where the government is going and where the citizens are going. We should do pre-studies in a generic way on the topics and then we can do pre-studies on the bills. By doing so, you will be so much more prepared. We should be driven by those concepts, namely, where the governments are going and where citizens are going. There is a gap there that I think the Senate could work on.
Our studies are not to pre-empt legislation. We stop our studies to really work on the legislation. It is the most fundamental thing we can do, and we’re not competing with the House of Commons. They get elected. They do the issues of the day. They have a closer liaison with constituents because they know the bills generally originate there, but not fully.
The sidebar for me is that when the senators are commented on by citizens or the press, we highlight our studies, and that’s what we did all the time, but look at our studies. Standing back, no longer being a senator, I find that the studies are important to academics in the community, to think tanks and to others who are in a particular subject area, but most citizens really aren’t involved with that. They’re more interested in the legislation, and we as a Senate organization could do more to focus in where the citizens are going and the types of legislation and what are the government responses today. Governments are changing, and it isn’t just this government. It’s all the rest of the governments that we’ve had, and even provincially. Their roles have changed, citizens’ expectations have changed and the role of civil servants has changed.
The ability for citizens to engage with us in the Senate is not as easy as it used to be. Governments used to have these white papers, green papers, ways to announce what they wanted to do, and they would attach to it how they’re going to do it. Now we hear announcements and citizens are coming to me asking what it means, and I’m not sure because there isn’t that announcement and thread. It isn’t just happening in Canada; it’s happening elsewhere too.
So I think the restructuring really has to get at working on that issue of connecting citizens.
In my last years, the latter years, we rarely had individual citizens come and testify. We had experts come, but we really didn’t have citizens. We had less involvement from even the academics across Canada, and so those are things you can look at, to reach out, to get to universities across Canada, think tanks in Canada, and reach out to give, again, a place for individuals who track certain issues to be able to respond to you in this environment. Those are some of the things.
As I say, there’s no input into the policy legislation. We seem to have input into the after-effects, but you’ll see in government the bills are thin, unless they’re omnibus bills, and they don’t contain what they used to and we had some great senators — Senator Eymard Corbin, if I remember his name — constantly saying that there’s nothing in the bill, that it’s all in regulations. That was the problem. We don’t know what the implementation is, and I know from my years in court that it isn’t just the Criminal Code. The administration of justice is just as important. I may be committed to some policy, but it’s how it’s implemented that makes it either a success or a failure, and in many cases, it’s not implemented.
My bottom line and suggestion is that committees look to taking into account committees attached to ministries so you can track them. You’re here for a long time. You can call them. You should know what their work is. You can see whether they’re involved with the governments. Are they making decisions? It used to be the civil servants used to say to governments, “If you take this course, these are the consequences; if you take this course, these are the consequences.” I’m hearing from academics more than anyone else saying that’s not happening. They’re being asked, “Here is what we want to do. Tell us how it’s going to be done,” and it’s often during or after the fact. It puts civil servants in a very strange position, so I think that’s another thing that would lead me to say you should look pre-, during, and post-legislation and keep tracking it.
How many times do we say in the Senate, “We won’t put in the amendment, but we’re going to put in a clause that will review it”? I was very pleased to see that Foreign Affairs followed up the bill that I was involved with, the Magnitsky bill, but there are so many others. How many bills have never been implemented and we put in a review process here to take them off the books.
Now I could go into the separate committees, but I will do that in questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Andreychuk. We’re going to move on to questions, starting with Senator Mégie.
Senator Mégie: Hello, Senator Andreychuk.
I’m delighted to see you back in the Senate. I loved everything you said in your introduction, especially about the follow-up to bills and what happens after they are passed. That’s great, but that’s not what my question is about.
My question has to do with committee mandates.
Some committees are given a rich and varied mandate; they manage to fulfill their mandate, except that, alongside other committees, it creates an inequity because other committees are given fewer tasks. I’m thinking, for example, of one of the committees I’m a member of, SOCI, and the list of areas it has to deal with.
Do you think that, in reviewing the committees’ mandates, we could subdivide them in the same way as in the other place, where very specific subjects have been identified for the committees, or that we could create different committees ourselves with a more limited, more manageable mandate?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
[English]
Ms. Andreychuk: I spent a lot of time working on efficiencies and mandates and defining them in the United Nations, and I found that we ended up with more committees, more confusion. That’s why I made the comment of goodwill. It goes from the Internal Economy Committee that has money, and what I didn’t see in the Senate was where the policy negotiations were happening.
Terms of reference are good, and they could be narrowed or expanded, but in the end, it’s for the committee to determine what they can handle, and if they can’t, move over. The tendency is we want to do everything. The committees have to select the reference themselves.
Foreign affairs and international trade is the overall policy of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I’ll give you two instances.
One chair from another committee came and said, “We want to study something within our terms of reference, but it impinges on yours,” and I said, “Yes, it does, but remember, international trade and national trade are two sides of the same coin. Pick what is within your jurisdiction, narrow it, and perhaps we might want to pick it up,” so it’s a negotiation to narrow or to expand, in my opinion.
If you take too much time in defining the references, people will still do what they’re driven to do. I don’t know if that answers it, but it seems to me that it’s selection within the committee, what you can manage, and the collegiality to work, not to impinge on ours.
I had another senator on another committee chairing who started the process, and I had to reach out to him and say, “Here is how you should do it to stay within your mandate and not impinge on ours.” So there is a give-and-take within the committee and a give-and-take between committees. What I’m not clear on and I hope you can straighten out is the role of leaders and what you actually manage and get references, because I found there’s no policy discussion. It comes on the floor and then it goes out, and then it’s a question of going to Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to get the funds to do it. More time should be spent somewhere on what you want to do, and that would answer some of what you want. I’ll make my answers shorter.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for being here. Your cogent and well-considered interventions are very appreciated. As a relatively — I think I’m the youngest senator at this table. Newest. Newest. I tried to slip that in. It didn’t work.
Senator Cordy: Good try.
Senator Kutcher: I tried.
I’d like your thoughts on what I find a bit of a vexatious issue, and that is witness selection. In my understanding and thinking about the role of witnesses — and maybe I understand this incorrectly — they should be seen as amicus curiae. They should be providing us with the best information they can provide. They are friends of the committee, not mouthpieces for particular perspectives. I think that I have struggled because it is not clear that all witnesses actually see the role that way, and maybe we should let witnesses know that that’s what they should be doing.
I have two questions. First, what are your thoughts on fact-checking answers the witnesses give us? Sometimes, in areas that I have expertise, they give us answers that we know aren’t correct, and we can find the correction, but there seems to be no way of fact-checking. Second, is there a role for using independent sources for witness selection instead of committee members or the Library of Parliament, who tend to go back to the same people? We have groups like the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Council of Academies, who could provide us with independent witnesses of great expertise to help the committee. Just your thoughts and reflections on those two questions.
Ms. Andreychuk: You’re picking up on the point I was trying to make. If you wait until you get a bill, we’re scrambling to get witnesses and scrambling to do everything; our researchers do a good job, and I think the chairs and vice-chairs try to do it, but it would be better if we knew the subject matter earlier to be able to negotiate getting witnesses.
When I came in, one of the good things was that panels usually had the pros and the cons. I found on the cannabis bill before us it was all the pro perspective. They were engaged. The rest were not. It was only later that these witnesses said, “Hey, why didn’t you call us?” It wasn’t to exclude them; it was just time pressures. So perhaps talking to your researchers about that and to think ahead, see if you can broaden it across Canada. If we respect regions, we should be getting sources from those regions, and it’s usually — if Senator Stewart were here, my very great mentor in the Senate, he said it’s the “TOM crowd” of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal that we reach to, because it’s easier and faster. There are great minds across the country.
The other thing we used to do was put the pro and the con perspectives together. We made sure that we wouldn’t have witnesses just on one side or the other. The witnesses don’t want to come, I think, to be amicus curiae. They want to be putting their point of view, but if someone is putting a contrary point of view, I found the dialogue between them helped us become welded together. Well, he said, she said, and now we’ve got to figure out how we present a report.
The good thing in the Senate is that we try not to have minority reports. The House is filled with them because they’re political. They want their point of view through it. We do best when we have a consensus report, but within the report, put in some of the minority opinions. That’s diplomacy in a report, how you write it, how you phrase it, to give everyone room.
I don’t see that coming out that often in the reports now. Those are some things I inherited, and I thought they were good.
Senator Ringuette: Senator Andreychuk, it’s great to see you. And you look in great shape, so that’s a plus.
I have two immediate questions. With regard to the mandate of committees — and you’ve touched on the review on most bills that we have to do, a five-year review, and some are three years also right now — would you say that it should be in the mandate of the different committees to review the bills that are under their qualification?
Ms. Andreychuk: Yes, I think that you should. If you look back, when you take your position oath, we follow practices, precedents and acts, and there are so many reports filed in both houses from so many sources within government and they’re just tabled, and very few are picked up and analyzed, and that’s a great source of information and need that we should pick up on and tell government, “You better follow up on this.” So the answer is yes to doing that. In the mandate would be good.
Senator Ringuette: I have a quick question. The other one that you touched on is regulations. Right now, we have a joint committee with the House of Commons in regards to regulation. As a follow-up to the bill, shouldn’t the regulations be referred for approval or review to the committee that reviewed the bill instead of a joint committee?
Ms. Andreychuk: I’m not an expert within — I sat on the Rules Committee; I think I sat on every committee. That one got involved into great bills on drug implementation and all that, and so you heavily rely on your researchers for that.
What I’m talking about is, for example, young offenders. The bill came to us, and I asked, “How are you going to implement having separate places for youth?” And, of course, senators said, “Oh, but that’s good policy.” Yes, but I’m a practitioner out in Saskatchewan, and it is rural, and then there is the North, and we have one jail up north somewhere in a small town, and how do we separate the adults from that? Can we afford to build those? Oh, well, we’ll send them down to wherever it is in the south so they have a separate facility. Well, then you’ve broken their families. It’s that kind of dialogue on regulations and implementation that isn’t occurring, and it’s making bills not as effective, if at all, and so I would suggest that you start talking early on regulations and implementation, and maybe say, “This bill should not proceed until we know the answers to this.”
And, sure, follow-up would be good. Now, whether it’s a bicameral or an independent, I don’t know. It would then be a change of the Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament Committee, and I’m not an expert in that.
Senator Ringuette: That is what we’re reviewing right now. So thank you.
Ms. Andreychuk: You’re the expert in that.
Senator Batters: It is great to see you, Senator Andreychuk. So nice to have you back in this building and giving us much of your wisdom from a lot of experience. That’s very helpful to us.
With all of that experience, I would like to hear what you thought was perhaps one of the best committee experiences you had during your time in the Senate and what was an experience that perhaps you could say could have been dramatically improved, and why.
Ms. Andreychuk: I have touched on a number of problems, and that is that everybody wants to get in on the act of what’s current. If we are talking trade agreements, then every committee wants it because this is the hot issue, NAFTA or whatever it is.
I found those experiences, how do you go to another chair and say, “Stay out of my bailiwick” or “Let’s share it.” It took negotiations. Those took a lot of time. Some of us travel a long distance. We get in with a five-hour delay, as you and I had coming from Regina. You say, “I will talk to him tomorrow,” or “He is not in tomorrow; he is in a committee already.” I found that frustrating, trying to figure out what other committees are doing, finding out too late that they perhaps are doing something that my committee should be doing or factoring us in. It depends on that collegiality, team spirit and all of that. That is one answer.
The good experience I had is when we set up the Human Rights Committee. As a little history, for those of you who don’t know, we had been talking about forming a Human Rights Committee, because there was never a stand-alone committee on human rights in either house. There were the subcommittees that had formed. There was a lot of talk but no one wanted to expand. There was talk about getting Defence separately, but no one wanted to expand because it was part of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The deal was struck that there would be a Human Rights Committee and a Defence Committee only meeting on Mondays and there would be fewer committee members. My difficulty was that with fewer committee members because, if you are sitting on Monday with all the travel and everything, it was difficult. There was a corporal’s guard of people who were really committed. We all came on a Monday, year in and year out. It was a sacrifice for the members. That was a good experience, that they were so committed to it. In that committee, we made a decision that human rights is very ideologically based, value-based. That gets us not working collegially, but putting our point of view because it is so dear to us.
We looked at the international machinery of human rights. We said let’s start there, because nobody is doing it. We are sitting here today and look how our international human rights conventions and treaties are under attack and vulnerable.
I had former Senators Pearson, Carstairs, Oliver and Kinsella who were involved. We all agreed. We cared so much about the topic that we would not go where we knew we had differences. We worked together. Senator Pearson passed away recently. I miss her very much.
Senator Batters: That’s a very interesting perspective. I didn’t realize that about Defence, having originally been part of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Thanks for that.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, senator, for gracing us with your presence. You look brilliant. You have to impart your secrets to those of us who wish to look as brilliant.
Ms. Andreychuk: Retire.
Senator Omidvar: Also coming soon for me.
My question to you is about Human Rights. I sit on the committee. I agree with every observation you have made. It is a difficult committee to sit on because it is on Mondays. It is a smaller committee. We do outstanding work. Because we don’t get that much legislation, we are actually able to do the studies that matter on prisons, on the experience of Black people in the public service, et cetera.
However, suggestions have been made during this study that the Human Rights Committee should become a subcommittee of AEFA, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. My worry about that is that it would focus the human rights question completely on the international lens, which I know is important, but would then remove our study of human rights in Canada. Could you give this committee your perspective on that?
Ms. Andreychuk: I will start with one thing. I am very impressed with how much activity there is on human rights with expertise across Canada.
It is the people of Canada who should be expressing what they want in their country, what kinds of laws they want. There could be a valuable role to be played, which I’ve seen in your Human Rights Committee. There are others.
I do not see that kind of scrutiny on the international side. That’s the problem. Had we done more on the machinery of the conventions, we might have been leading our government to do more internationally. We are now bemoaning the fact that so many are opting out of international human rights, or haven’t joined.
I spent my life trying to get signatures of countries on the International Criminal Court. There are a number of countries now saying, “We may withdraw.” That emphasis should continue, because there is a gap. We would do a service for Canadians and everyone else. More Canadian NGOs are reaching out to do the international, because we do better if we do it on a universal basis.
Having said all that, there is a role for the committee to continue to do Canadian matters, as long as we are representing the people’s views on that committee and putting it in the context of the machinery as much as the issue. That’s where I think the strength of the committee could be.
When you look at the mechanisms — you were taking about the prisons — it started with there being sections in the Parole Board act, releases, et cetera, which were not implemented. That’s how we started that study. Then we’ve gone off to hearing everyone’s opinions on it. Cautiously, you can weave both international and national items.
Other countries are doing some interesting things. One of the things I wish we would stop doing is saying how well we are doing. There is a place for pride. There is a place, not for criticism, but for learning from others. We don’t know what is going on in the international court system in South America. We are part of that system, but we haven’t ever joined the Inter-American Court. We should look and see what it is doing. It would help us with local issues. I’m saying broaden it that way. A subcommittee is not the answer.
The message from here that I get is that you care; you are working on the Human Rights Committee and you are the Senate. Bravo. There’s a role for the Senate.
Senator Omidvar: I am pleased to tell you that the Senate is embarking on a study of the internationally displaced because the convention does not serve us as it did after World War II.
I would like to ask you about the regulations, your perspective that we should be more engaged in understanding the play of regulations.
Framework bills seem to have become the mould. I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We studied a framework bill on a disability credit. We are going to be studying a framework bill on child care.
There seems to almost be a convention that framework bills do not get into the picture inside the frame, because that will be left to the regulations. Are you suggesting that we change and amend the mandate of committees to include a more robust review of regulations?
Ms. Andreychuk: Yes. It could be a review of regulations. It could also be a change. As I say, we didn’t change; it was governments that changed and added more and more in.
If you have time, the senator here will tell you the senators who kept standing up and talking about, “Why are we moving substance into regulation? Regulations should be implementation.” I have spent more time talking about implementation since I left the Senate. I live out west. Clean water and Aboriginal issues are very important. The will was there to implement things, but there is no implementation strategy. There is another committee meeting, another committee meeting, another committee meeting. We still don’t have what we need.
I could go through bill after bill. Implementation shouldn’t be separated.
The Chair: I have to stop you. It’s my mistake — I thought we had until 10:30, but it is 10:15. I’m sorry. So we will shorten our questions and answers. I will skip my question.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Welcome. It’s great to hear all the information you’re sharing with us. My question will be brief, but I think the answer is complex, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
You described the difficulties of getting together at the time. There were two groups: the government and the opposition. Today, we have five groups in the Senate and are generally closer to 90 senators than 105. One group represents the government and is made up of three senators; the largest group has some 40 senators, and there are 19 standing Senate committees.
The challenges and issues of contemporary interest in Canada are huge and growing. What advice would you give us as to the criteria that should ensure that a committee exists? What committees could be merged with other committees to ensure that they can do their work and, above all, that within each one, we have a reasonable representation of minorities and regions of Canada?
[English]
Ms. Andreychuk: I think the word was “reasonable.” We had that argument even when we had just two groups. There were independents then. They cannot sit on every committee. And we had the leaders negotiating with the independents, saying you cannot leave them out, they need the information, et cetera.
So there is, again, goodwill. And the more committees, the more groups, the more complex it becomes. There is a breaking point where not everyone can be on every committee and not everyone’s wishes can be respected. You know within your own group that you don’t get what you want because you have to yield to others.
I’m not here to tell each group how they should manage themselves, but there should be some onus on them. There should be some liaison with the leaders of each group. I will tell you one of the negatives, perhaps. We would have members representing their groups, and we would have a meeting, the chair and the vice-chair, and say, okay, go back to your group and disseminate this; this is really important for your members to know.
Some members didn’t quite get the information for whatever reason, and that caused friction and difficulty, which led to my role, when I was chairing, to go to everyone and talk. You would see me slipping around the chamber and talking because that’s the only place I could catch them, or phoning them at home, et cetera.
I’m not the expert on how you should do it now. I just know that you have to build in the liaisons, and I would not want more committees.
Senator Saint-Germain: [Technical difficulties] standing.
Ms. Andreychuk: I know. So there may be some need to combine them. I could tell you what I think could be done with some of them, but I don’t think I should.
Senator Cordy: My question is a follow-up. A number of us have spoken about our committees, and it goes back to Senator Saint-Germain’s comments and questions in that how do we get regional representation and diversity on committees? On some committees, we have one or two people, so you don’t know who is going on from every other group, and you want people who are interested in the subject matter. But again, you would like to see diversity built into the committees and regional representation. At some committees it’s the coastal senators, some it’s others. Or is there some solution?
Ms. Andreychuk: I’ll answer it very quickly. I would be prepared, by the way, if anyone wants to listen to me, I can expand on all of that, because I gave it a lot of thought when I was approached. Please contact me on any particular issue so I don’t hold up the committee here.
Not everyone can sit on the committee, so there has to be some vetting inside the groups and then between the groups to make sure if you’re adding someone from the Atlantic, maybe we will add someone from B.C. All members in the Senate should know it is give and take in that sense.
I think there is merit with having people who have expertise on a topic, but I also think there is merit with bringing in someone who has never touched that topic. To me, that is at the leadership level, however you come to the conclusion of who gets on what committee. There should be something between the leaders that says we should look at these regions, gender, diversity, whatever you come up with, and then give and take.
But there is nothing stopping anyone. I used to go to the committees on the topics that I wanted and I wasn’t a member. Everybody was excited to see me because sometimes you don’t have full membership in the committees, so it was welcomed and it would be a fresh approach. My only caution on that is that some people start the debate all over again. I would say, when non-members want to come, please read the things and don’t ask the questions that have already been covered.
Management of committees is what you’re talking about, so please call me if you wish.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much. I’ll be as brief as I can. I’m just overwhelmed that you would take the time to come and talk with us. Your expertise and your observations are so valuable. Thank you very much.
You used words like collegiality, consensus, goodwill, and then talked a little bit about minority reports. Can you give us a quick rendition of your perspective around what consensus means?
Ms. Andreychuk: Consensus means that you cannot move — and I’m only talking about committees because there is a different collegiality and consensus in other parts of the Senate. No one is totally independent and free. We are all subject to the Senate act, the oath we took. That’s what brings us together, and our role to work for the citizens within our region and for our country. We bring our experience and our thoughts, but that’s that.
When we talk about consensus, if we can’t come to a recommendation, if we go down the road of having — and we did at one point for a short time — minority reports, we do not do justice to the Senate as we swore to it, and we then become the subject of debate by the public. You’re not elected. How dare you say X, Y, Z?
If you bring a consensus — and we all come from different points of view — that kind of consensus the government should listen to and the opposition members on the other side should listen to. The public should take it into account because we are so diverse.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. I can’t help calling you a senator even though you are not one now.
We had a recent instance where the Foreign Affairs Committee requested a travel budget to do an important study and do some travel in Europe. A CIBA subcommittee came back and said they can have 50% of the members go, but the other 50% would have to stay home because of budget issues or a budget decision.
What’s your opinion on allowing only half of the committee to do the important work that the committee must do on behalf of the Senate?
Ms. Andreychuk: I wish Senator Stewart were still here from Antigonish. He would answer that question much better than I.
I would hope that all committee members can travel, but if you look at the record of the committees, there are many members who don’t travel. The rule that I lived under for a long time was those who attended most got first dibs to go if it were shortened. The decision wasn’t ours in committee to cut it down, but if it were cut down, there had better be a valid reason.
When we were in cutback mode when I first came in, when we had real cutbacks throughout government and throughout Canada, to send 12 people out, how is that being perceived? Is that efficient? It was made known that we all wanted to travel. However, we are abiding by what you, the citizens, are doing in cutting back your travel. Not so many companies were sending people. We gave a reason for cutting it down. That reason had better be valid and accepting, not just managing.
The other thing is, I thought we were in a new world. We don’t need to travel as often. We should rethink that. When do we absolutely have to travel? I hope something has been cleared up. We used to say, “This is a emergency. We have to travel.” However, when someone was more cautious in their committee they would go to get money, but there was none left. That caused tension. So we went to a rule that stipulated you have to think ahead and ask. That is, “If it is going to be a special request you understand there will have to be a special budget allocation, and you will have to be the ones to explain why we are going back to the taxpayers to ask for more money.” I would hope that all the committee could travel. I would hope the committees would be cautious in their travel but if you have to cut it down, so be it.
The other question is: What are you travelling for? There may be no need to have 12 members if it is to collect evidence of a certain type. You may send only the chair and the co-chairs. After we did one report, we were invited from the Foreign Affairs Committee to present to the Senate and, it turned out, the other house of Mexico. We knew we could not get them funds. The invitation came to the chair, which was me, and I said, “I won’t go unless the deputy chair goes and a third member.” So the three of us went.
I think there are ways of doing travel and giving everyone a share. That’s going to be one of those sticky things. If you want the chair’s job, that comes with the territory. It is not just the Senate that has that problem. We should not think we are different in that sense.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator. I’m also used to calling you Senator, so I’ll continue to do so until the end.
Thank you for your testimony, and rest assured that your thoughts will not go unheeded, since we will be contacting you — me personally — for more information, particularly on the issue I wanted to discuss with you, which concerned the Senate reference orders and structure. We can discuss it, and I can pass on your thoughts to the committee. Thank you very much for coming. It was very helpful.
[English]
Ms. Andreychuk: Thank you for letting me return to what was my home for so many years.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Next we will hear next witnesses from the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. We have with us here in the room Senator Francis, chair of the committee; and Senator Arnot, deputy chair of the committee.
We also have with us someone who was with us until last January. Senator Christmas is joining us. He is also an ex-chair of this committee. You will have three minutes each so that we can have a joyful and interesting conversation. I think a lot will come out of the conversation. We will start with the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. You have three minutes.
Hon. Brian Francis, Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples: Thank you, senators. My remarks will be a little more than three minutes, so feel free to limit them. I think they will be important for the work you are doing in the committee and it might be good to have them.
Weli eksitpu’k. Good morning. In my role as Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, which I’ve held since December 2021, I am pleased to be here to contribute to your study on committee structures and mandates. Today, I will briefly talk about the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and highlight some of the challenges and opportunities. I will start with the mandate.
The mandate of the committee is to study all matters relating to Indigenous peoples in Canada. In my opinion, the mandate is broad and has allowed us to study a number of issues. Since I became the chair, the Indigenous Peoples Committee has studies and issued reports on a number of topics, such as missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, the Cannabis Act and Indian residential schools.
The Committee on Indigenous Peoples has studied and reported on five pieces of legislation from 2022 to now. In the coming weeks, we will be concluding Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Reconciliation. We have held eight meetings to date and have heard, on average, six witnesses per meeting. There will be another meeting this week before we move to clause-by-clause consideration.
We know the work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples matters. In particular, it helps to draw attention and seek redress for serious violations of abuses of rights. Now I want to give you an example. In June 2022, the Indigenous Peoples Committee issued a report related to discrimination of First Nations women and their descendants in registration provisions of the Indian Act. In early 2023, after we received a government response, we held more meetings with officials and impacted individuals and groups. Subsequently, in July 2023, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples called on the Government of Canada to implement the recommendations in our report.
While the Indigenous Peoples Committee has been seized with this issue for many years, I’m proud to highlight how we continue to draw domestic and international attention to this ongoing issue.
On the matter of mandates, I also want to note that while the Indigenous Peoples Committee benefits from specialized knowledge and skills related to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis individuals, communities, governments and organizations, I’m not of the opinion that other committees cannot undertake work related to Indigenous peoples.
In recent years, the Fisheries and Oceans Committee studied and reported on the rights-based fisheries of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati. The work has also garnered domestic and international attention and, to me, is a perfect example of how committees can work within their mandates to also address matters that impact Indigenous peoples.
My recommendation to other committees examining legislation for matters relating to Indigenous peoples is to ask for some guidance from, for example, the Indigenous Senators Working Group.
Next I want to talk about the schedule and membership. The Indigenous Peoples Committee meets twice a week for four hours total, and we are fortunate to rarely have last-minute cancellations. The Indigenous Peoples Committee has 12 members, and I do not have any strong opinions on the question of numbers in the committee. In my view, what is important is how engaged our colleagues are. It is valuable to have members who are Indigenous and non-Indigenous. To hear from as many people as possible during committee sittings, the committee often schedules three witnesses per hour. We also limit opening remarks to five minutes, and we limit questions and answers to five minutes per senator. Since exchanges are kept brief, witnesses are always invited to provide written responses to outstanding questions. I will admit, this approach is quite rigid. In an ideal scenario, I would prefer we have additional time. I would prefer not to have to interject when individuals are speaking and to let the natural flow of the discussion continue. That being said, I think we have made it work as best as possible.
It is a concern, however, that committee meetings tend to be very structured and formal, which can be intimidating or even triggering for some of our Indigenous witnesses. We need to remember, especially when we’re dealing with difficult and sensitive subject matters, that this institution is a place that has felt unsafe and inaccessible for many, and for some it still is. The Indigenous Peoples Committee advocated for making culturally responsive and trauma-informed supports available to witnesses who appear in front of our committees, which is an important step, yet more needs to be done.
We need to discuss how to incorporate Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing into our committee work. For example, if we really want to create a safer and more supportive environment for Indigenous witnesses, we could use sharing circles and fact-finding and evidence-gathering processes. That may help address some of the power imbalances. These are changes not necessarily outside of the mandate of the committee but can be done if we think outside the box. I’ll end there, thank you, wela’lin.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Francis. I’ll turn now to Senator Christmas.
Hon. Dan Christmas, former senator, former chair, Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s certainly a pleasure to be before you this morning.
I’d like to share my comments about your study on Senate committee structure and mandates and, in particular, as it relates to the Senate Standing Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I was very fortunate to serve on the APPA steering committee during my six years as a senator, including as chair and vice-chair. In my brief remarks this morning, I think it may be helpful if I provided the committee a broad overview of the Indigenous context that APPA finds itself in today. I also have one specific request for your consideration, Madam Chair.
The Indigenous world in Canada is rapidly evolving. It seems the shock of finding the remains of 215 Indigenous children at the former Kamloops Indigenous residential school in May 2021 accelerated the pace of addressing the many outstanding Indigenous issues in this country.
There was a renewed focus on solving the drinking water crisis, on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, on Indigenous child welfare, Indian residential school survivors, and resolving numerous land and treaty rights claims in this country. It seemed that the political dam of apathy and inaction that had been built up for decades, and even for centuries, had finally been broken.
When I sat in the chamber, I was pleasantly surprised by the quick passage of Bill C-5 that established September 30 as the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation. It was passed in both chambers in a matter of days. Parliament had found the will to act. For Indigenous people, it was a long time coming. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples presented its final report with 440 recommendations 25 years earlier. In 2015, our former colleague Senator Murray Sinclair tabled the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with its 94 Calls to Action; and four years ago, our colleague Senator Michèle Audette, with our fellow commissioners, outlined 231 Calls for Justice on behalf of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
But ask yourselves, how many of these 765 calls and recommendations have ever been implemented? My guess is less than 10%. I can assure you that the federal political dam of inaction has been holding back a massive wall of disappointment, frustration and anger for many Inuit, Métis and First Nations people of Canada. Thankfully, the dam is beginning to flow, somewhat, but there is a great deal of work for parliamentarians to enable true justice and meaningful reconciliation to happen between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
On the immediate horizon is the implementation of Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was passed in 2021. Harmonizing federal laws with UNDRIP will no doubt be a long-term and painstaking process. It will require commitment, dedication and hard work by all parliamentarians, but that is your role and responsibility as senators. I wish you all the best in this tremendous task.
Finally, Madam Chair, I wish to present a specific request. When I served as APPA chair, I had proposed that our committee retain external legal counsel specializing in Indigenous law. Indigenous law then, and more so today, is a very complicated and specialized field of law. The field is growing very rapidly as a large number of cases wind their way through the Canadian court system. I strongly felt that APPA should have access to an Indigenous law firm or to individual legal counsel to advise the committee during its review of government legislation. Departmental legal counsel was available, but more often than not they represented the government’s position that was more likely to be in opposition to Indigenous views of the law. One option was for the Law Clerk’s Office to contract outside legal counsel, but there were concerns about neutrality and about cost implications. In the end, we didn’t pursue the matter any further.
I request that this issue be reconsidered. I strongly believe that APPA would benefit enormously if it had access to Indigenous law experts. I recall that back in 2021, the Library of Parliament had prepared a confidential issues paper on this matter for the steering committee’s consideration.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you, wela’lin.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Christmas. Senator Arnot, you have the floor.
Hon. David M. Arnot: Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the work of the Indigenous Peoples Committee. As Senator Francis stated, the committee responds to issues of the day. It has been in place for 33 years and is responsive to issues raised in legislation that we’re asked to consider. A good example is Bill C-51, which passed in June as a rapid turnaround. It was a win for the Whitecap Dakota First Nation and a win, in my opinion, for Canada and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations and a win for the Senate. It was a modern-day treaty based on self-government for the Whitecap Dakota people, and it cured a wrong that had been in place for about two centuries.
The Indigenous Peoples Committee is currently working on the answer to the question why Indigenous people are having such difficulty in getting historical information they need to understand what happened to their family members. Why there were so many unmarked children’s graves in residential schools is an example of a contemporary issue.
We also work hard to support legislation and studies that demonstrate areas in which Indigenous communities are thriving and excelling. I look to, as an example, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, where, obviously, Indigenous people are realizing economic and social aspirations that they rightfully have.
With respect to the committee’s work in 2016, the committee started to look for Indigenous youth leaders to come before it and talk about the issues that they see and that they’re experiencing, what barriers they have, and the effects of intergenerational trauma, disability and isolation, as well as identity loss. I mention that because I believe that Indigenous youth are the people that Canadians should really be paying attention to, and a longitudinal study over what those youths who have come as leaders have said over the course of seven years or so is something the Senate committee should be working on as a significant demonstration of reconciliation.
In fact, every piece of legislation we consider, every study and piece of work that we’re working on, is necessarily framed through the lens of reconciliation and restoring a positive relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples in Canada. Prime Minister Martin said that this is Canada’s national shame, and I agree that that is. I spent 20 years or so telling the people of Saskatchewan and others across Canada that Canadians should be shocked, appalled and ashamed at what their government did to Indigenous people, but they fundamentally really don’t know what happened. It has changed a little bit, as Senator Christmas said, since the discovery of graves in Kamloops and other places in Canada. We need to build on that momentum.
I believe that that momentum has been created by the TRC’s Calls to Action and the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice, which the Senate has looked at.
The Senate should be proud of the Indigenous Peoples Committee it has mandated, invested in and continues to put time and energy and resources to, in responding to the TRC, the MMIWG and the future of Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Across many committees, senators are reflecting on reconciliation. I use the example that in June of this year, Senator Cormier reported in the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, in a review of Bill C-13, that every piece of legislation passed by Canada’s Parliament is an opportunity for truth, reconciliation and action for a departure from harmful colonial policies. I believe that to be true, and the Senate is leading by example.
If I had one takeaway for you as members of the committee that I’m speaking to today, it is to ensure that the reconciliation lens is part of every committee’s mandate. There’s a real risk in making ritualized, boilerplate statements and land acknowledgments in our work, but we need to consider that lens in every committee, because it has implications for Indigenous peoples which have not been identified as well as they should be in all the committees.
Responding to the TRC’s Calls to Action and the MMIWG’s Calls for Justice and Canada’s treaty rights and inherent rights of Indigenous people and human rights — our obligations — that is part of our committee’s work, and understanding that intersectionality is part of our committee’s work on a day-to-day basis. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, colleagues, for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Christmas. My question applies to all committees. However, you’re the one who’s here today, so I will ask you.
When studying reports in committee, I’ve observed — and I see it regularly — that the French version of the reports contains terms that don’t quite correspond to the English version. Given the makeup of this committee, I’m not sure there’s anybody raising the red flag to say so.
I would like to know how you manage to ensure the accuracy and consistency of your committee’s reports in both official languages.
[English]
Senator Francis: As far as I know, it’s through translation services, and they’re paid to be accurate, so that is what I go with.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I know. I don’t want to be critical of the translation service. First of all, it’s a big job. That’s fine, except that sometimes there are several terms in a report that do not correspond at all when translated into French, because everyone adopts the English version, and we don’t bother at all with the French version.
I just wanted to bring that to your attention. I know you don’t have an answer for me, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this should be taken into account.
[English]
Senator Francis: Thank you for your question, and we will indeed take a close look at that.
Senator Wells: Thanks to our witnesses, and the Honourable Dan Christmas as well. It is good to see you again.
We heard the Honourable Mr. Christmas mention that if they had legal advice from the department, that would be the government’s line that they would get, if the committee had legal advice. It’s a great idea to have independent counsel advising, especially a committee such as this.
Do you see a danger in having a committee be an advocate for a cause versus knowledgeable about a cause? Do you see any difference in that, in that the Senate — and by extension, its committees — are supposed to be independently thinking about this? Whatever their study is, whether it’s a legislative study or a report, do you see any danger in having advocates versus knowledgeable people? Obviously, our committee leadership are extremely knowledgeable, but, perhaps — even Senator Arnot, by your own comments in your statement — they are also advocates for a particular path?
Senator Arnot: If you’re going to have an opinion, it’s always a good idea to be knowledgeable about the subject matter before you start.
From my perspective, I see myself as an advocate for fairness and justice and not an advocate for Indigenous people. Indigenous people don’t need me to advocate for them, but I do need to advocate for fairness and justice, and that’s what is at stake in this problem with reconciliation.
Senator Francis: Yes, I tend to agree with Senator Arnot. Knowledge is good and advocation is good, and they both go hand in hand. I advocate for our people. It’s what I’ve done all my life, and I’m proud of that. I know we have to be independent, and we are independent in committee, and I’m very independent as the chair, but outside of that, those are very important things for me to deal with.
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Senator Wells, and I appreciate the question, because that is a major concern.
Perhaps I’ve sat in too many courtrooms. I’ve listened to Crown prosecutors promote the government’s decision on certain court cases, and then in turn, I’ve seen many Indigenous lawyers stand up and make equally strong arguments before a judge, representing an Indigenous point of view.
The problem I had, sitting in your seat, was when we dealt with government legislation, quite often departmental lawyers were there. They would advocate the government’s position. Knowing in my mind that there was another point of view that needed to be heard, we tried to call witnesses who were Indigenous lawyers and experts, and they tried to counter that with a balancing point of view.
I always saw my role, Senator Wells, as primarily someone who represented a minority people in this Parliament. That was my purpose; that was my role. I was there to represent and advocate the minority interest so the majority would understand that there was a different point of view.
In my view, there are no better advocates, at the present time, than some of the very talented Indigenous lawyers who are now coming to the forefront and articulating so well and clearly in English, and sometimes in French, what the Indigenous legal position is. I think senators should have the benefit of hearing both and then judging for yourselves what is fair. But to arbitrarily disallow Indigenous points of law to be brought forward is inherently unfair.
I was quite disturbed when we had our discussion about engaging Indigenous lawyers that some of the positions advocated were about costs. I think the cost was something like $30,000. There was some fear of neutrality, which I found quite puzzling. I was thinking to myself that we’re trying to achieve fairness, and sometimes to achieve fairness, you need to hear the two points of view.
I would argue that to achieve fairness, you need to hear the minority position. You need to have it well articulated, especially when it comes to legislation that is articulated and supported by departmental legal counsel, who often represent the government. You need to hear the other side, and you need to hear it well.
I hope that helps.
Senator Francis: Just to add to what Senator Christmas has said, we have to remember that as Indigenous senators, we’re working in a colonial institution, and the laws of our Indigenous ways don’t always align. That’s why it’s important to have proper representation and advocates for our Indigenous people.
Senator Arnot: I support what Senator Christmas is saying. I learned, when I was Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan, that First Nations and Indigenous people look at the world in a different way than non-Indigenous people and that the non‑Indigenous people have a lot to learn from the way First Nations people look at the world. That second voice needs to be heard and protected to do our work properly.
The Chair: Well taken.
Senator Batters: Thank you all very much for being here. First, I have a quick question for the current chair, Senator Francis.
I see when your committee typically meets. Do you usually meet twice a week? Is that quite usual you would take both of those slots each week?
Senator Francis: Yes, absolutely, we take them.
Senator Batters: I want to delve more into this item of discussion that has recently been talked about with former Senator Christmas about external legal counsel, potentially, for this committee. You mentioned a figure of $30,000. You said that cost implications were a consideration at the time you proposed it, and then you were mentioning a $30,000 amount. What was that for? Was that the estimate to deal with a particular piece of legislation that you wanted to have this external legal counsel help you with? Also, I’m just wanting more detail about what you hope to achieve by having an external legal counsel retained by the Senate committee, as opposed to how the normal case would occur.
I have been on the Legal Committee for quite some time, so I know that with that committee, when we have many pieces of legislation, we have a government perspective. Perhaps it’s a government bill, so their departmental lawyer has a certain perspective, but then we bring lawyers from many other perspectives to bring differing viewpoints. That’s how we deal with it at Legal Committee. These lawyers generously give of their time when they could probably be billing clients during that time. Instead, they attend to present us with detailed briefs and come before our committee to answer questions. That’s how we handle it.
I’m wondering what you hope to achieve by having a different scenario for your committee.
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Senator Batters. That’s a great question.
Yes, we do have the benefit of calling Indigenous legal experts as witnesses to committees. They provide the advice basically as a one-off. They’re appearing before a committee for a few minutes, and we get an opportunity to ask them questions, and they offer their opinions.
It really stirred our thirst for more, and so the concept was that the Law Clerk’s Office would hire, on a retainer, an Indigenous law firm or an Indigenous legal expert who would be retained by the committee to provide advice as needed.
We wanted to offer respect. When you rely on witnesses to volunteer their expertise for a few minutes at a time, and when there’s a committee — you’re dealing with legislation at times — it requires some in-depth conversations about the implications of the legislation that may impact section 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights, that may put into question whether or not the Crown fulfilled its duty to consult. Now the big question is, does it align with UNDRIP?
There are huge questions that I don’t think can be answered simply through questions and answers after a witness appearing. We need in-depth discussions to be able to go deeply into these topics. Without using or burning out Indigenous experts as witnesses, we really should have them retained so that point of view is clearly articulated to the committee and also, of course, to senators themselves if required.
I think it broadens our understanding. It enables us to get a fuller perspective, and it enables you, as senators, to have a more balanced and complete approach to critiquing and improving legislation.
Senator Batters: I’m assuming, then, that the $30,000 retainer that was proposed was for one particular bill that you were dealing with. And also —
Mr. Christmas: If I can interrupt, Senator Batters. No. It was meant to be a general retainer for any request for legal opinion or any conversation that would occur in the course of a fiscal year.
Senator Batters: I also wanted to briefly raise that an implication that could result, if something like that happens, is that for all the lawyers who then come to the Legal Committee for free and provide briefs and significant witness testimony and that sort of thing, it could end up being a very expensive exercise. There could be that implication if something like this were pursued.
Mr. Christmas: Yes. That’s the “potato chip argument.” If you give one to one, you share it with everyone.
The difference here, Senator Batters, is we’re dealing with a specific field of Indigenous law that is very complicated, very specific. We’re hoping to obtain those kinds of individuals as part of the Senate process.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, colleagues, for being here. Dan, it’s lovely to see you again. You’re reminding us that the structured work of the Senate may not be easily compressed into three and a half days.
I have a specific question for Senator Francis. You talked about the cross-cutting mandate and the work that was done with the Senate Fisheries Committee, or POFO, which was excellent. It’s still ongoing, by the way, as you know. But that was made much easier because you and Senator Christmas were members of both committees. Have you thought of a structure that could be applied in the Senate that would send this information back and forth across committees, from your committee to other committees, to inform them or participate in or in some way let them know about studies that they’re doing that might cross mandates?
Senator Francis: I have not given that much thought. I know in our own group we communicate what we are doing in terms of by committee, but I don’t know how that would look. It would certainly be a piece of work to do that. When you look at the number of Indigenous senators, we are getting there. We are making some really good changes. We are not there yet in terms of numbers to go out there and bring a lot of that to the floor.
Senator Arnot: This summer, the Agriculture Committee went to Saskatchewan. Senator Black was chairing the committee meetings. I went to one of the committee meetings, and one of the important things that came out is that the First Nations’ perspective on agricultural issues on soils is really important.
The report of the committee will, for the first time, focus on that, even though the original report by our senator from Saskatchewan did not include that. It’s a new perspective and it is another way that a committee can look at how to see the First Nations’ perspective. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have something to add, Senator Christmas?
Mr. Christmas: No, thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, and special greetings to Senator Christmas. It is very pleasant to see you this morning.
[Translation]
My question also has to do with the intersectionality of your committee. Not every bill that has an impact on First Nations peoples can go to just one committee, APPA. It is important to have that collaboration and that input.
My question is about the representativeness of Indigenous peoples. We have often heard that Indigenous peoples, First Nations, Métis and Inuit, have not been adequately consulted on bills. It’s easy for your committee; you have more expertise. It is more difficult for other committees to identify credible representatives, given that there is no unanimity among Indigenous peoples — just as there is no more unanimity among non-Indigenous people.
To be clear, could you give non-Indigenous committees some guidance on their criteria for selecting witnesses to represent First Nations, Inuit, and Métis? This is a very sensitive and very complex issue.
[English]
Senator Francis: That is a good question, senator. Thank you for that. The important thing going forward is to check with the Indigenous senators working group if there are any questions relating to witnesses or whatever the case is. We all know we can’t be at every committee. If committees come to us, we will certainly point them in the right direction, if we can. But going back to your question about some groups saying they didn’t get consulted enough, that’s always going to be the case. You will never get 100% unanimity, but I think it’s just doing the best we can and covering the majority and checking with people. Let’s face it: Nearly every bill that comes through the Senate has an Indigenous component to it. And we always have that old saying, “Nothing about us without us,” a simple saying, but it’s true. Since coming to the Senate, I’ve seen that there are changes. Communication lines are open, and I see us moving forward positively in terms of those issues.
Senator Arnot: I have a question for the members of this committee. Is it possible for this committee to make a policy that would apply to all Senate committees to ensure that, under the rubric of reconciliation, the views of Indigenous people or how any report might affect Indigenous people in Canada should be considered, so that it is one of the fundamental lenses that all committees at some point look at?
The Chair: I can tell you our committee will consider the question you just put forward when we have our general discussion at the conclusion of our work and when we write our reports, so be reassured.
Senator Saint-Germain: My supplementary question is relevant to the issue of outsourcing for an Indigenous lawyer or law firm or whatever it is. Isn’t the question, rather, would the Senate, in 2023, need legal experts who would be the legal advisers on constitutional and Indigenous issues, rather than outsourcing for having advocates being mainly other types of witnesses, who could also be lawyers, and also senators and experts?
Senator Francis: I will pass that to Senator Christmas to start.
Mr. Christmas: Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. Having in-house Indigenous experts within the Law Clerk’s Office would definitely be an option, and, to Senator Arnot’s point, their expertise wouldn’t be limited to just APPA or POFO. They could share their expertise with other committees that are dealing with Indigenous issues or who have the potential of impacting Indigenous issues.
I think that’s an important point because the government has a very clear duty to consult with Indigenous people. Sometimes we, as a Senate, have to be mindful to be aware when the government has not fulfilled that duty properly and when we have the opportunity to represent that point of view when it comes to considering government legislation.
The task that the APPA committee had was that sometimes we only had X number of days — three days, perhaps — to call witnesses on a bill, and the great diversity of Indigenous opinion across this country is huge. There is a great diversity among First Nations. There is a different point of view with the Métis communities and the Inuit communities. There is diversity among them as well. Trying to capture that diversity of opinion in studying a bill can be really challenging. It is challenging to come up with a witness list and try do your work within a certain number of days. You are perfectly correct. It is almost impossible. You just have to do your best and try to ensure that who you call to appear before you is representing at least some of that diversity of interest.
Senator Cordy: One of my questions was going to be should the reconciliation lens be part of all committees, but that has just been answered, and should it be part of our report was also part of the question that was asked. Certainly, we’ve seen positive changes over the years in my time in the Senate, where we have enough Indigenous population in the Senate to make a difference, and that’s across committees. We’ve heard it from the Agriculture Committee, Social Affairs Committee, Fisheries Committee — certainly committees I’ve been part of — and the Official Languages Committee that we heard about today. It is making a huge difference.
Senator Christmas, welcome and thanks to all of you. They have been great presentations, and it has been a great Q&A.
You’ve spoken about the amount of legislation we’ve had in the past few years related to Indigenous issues, and that’s a positive thing. You were also asked about the implementation of some of the changes that have supposedly come about as a result of the legislation passing. What should we do to ensure that the bills that have passed both houses of Parliament — they are the law — yet they are not necessarily being implemented?
Mr. Christmas: That’s a great question, Senator Cordy. I recall, for instance, when the cannabis bill was passed, there was a lot of feedback from Indigenous groups that they weren’t properly consulted. One of the activities of the APPA committee was to do a review of the Cannabis Act and, of course, a lot of those deficiencies became very clear. One of the roles of APPA has to be bringing government to account for legislation that it has passed.
Some legislation, of course, has a 5-year review or it could be a 10-year review, but when it comes to Indigenous issues, one of the roles the committee can play is to require APPA to do that review on behalf of the Senate when it comes to Indigenous legislation. We have the Indigenous Languages Act that was passed a few years ago, and I think that review was proposed there as well. The child welfare bill also needs to be reviewed.
I think those mechanisms are very important. Committees can play a role in studying past legislation and bringing forward recommendations to make the implementation happen.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question about committees in general. Do you believe that there should be a health and family option for senators to participate online on committees? I would like to ask that question to each one of you.
Senator Francis: An online option? I think that would be helpful, yes.
Senator Arnot: Yes, is my answer.
Mr. Christmas: Obviously, for myself, this is the only option I have, to be able to join you online. I can’t travel to Ottawa, but I do appreciate the work of the Senate and, if I can help, it will be the online option for me.
The Chair: Is there a supplementary? If not, I have a question. Do you feel that the number of new membership in the committee is the perfect number?
Senator Francis: Personally speaking, I don’t have an issue with what the numbers are. My concern is that when senators are there, they want to be there and that they are engaged to help us move forward with the items that we have. That could be a 12-person committee or it could be 6. It doesn’t make a difference.
Senator Arnot: I’m happy with the number.
Mr. Christmas: I would defer to my colleagues on that one. They know what’s happening.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I guess we are done for today. Thank you very much for your participation. We have taken notes. Thank you for your presentations. They were in depth and thoughtful. If we have any questions, we will ring you.
(The committee adjourned.)