Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 20th, 2018

[Marie Wilson]

I do see signs of movement. I do see concerted efforts being made, and I see things being attempted, not all of which will succeed. I know that, but we have to try.

I think that it's important to underscore that a national day for truth and reconciliation...and by the way, I'm not necessarily wedded to that name. The purpose and intent of it is what's really important to me. It may be that a circle of indigenous elders would have a better name or even an indigenous language name that they would like to propose. I'm not wedded, and I don't believe any of us are wedded to the name itself. The purpose and intent is the main thing.

What I want to say is that it would be a misunderstanding to think that the primary target of that would be indigenous people. It is Canada that has still so much yet to learn. It is everyone else, and that's why I'm calling for it as a national day. It makes it everybody's call to attention, call to remembrance, and call to respect, and hopefully the in the ongoing nature of it, as is this case with all of our schoolchildren, there is ongoing education about it. We don't just talk about wars; we talk about peace in the context of talking about wars. In the context of residential schools, we can talk about mistakes of the past and what we are trying to do to address things going forward.

[Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That brings you to five minutes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Yurdiga; that didn't quite work out.

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much to both of you, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Chartier.

Clearly, studying this bill keeps taking us deeper, it's amazing. I expect that we will have a lot of work to do when the time comes to review the recommendations and then take a position that is somewhat unifying. Clearly, this bill hits a very sensitive nerve, and the recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission gives rise to very strong reactions from parliamentarians.

I am very sensitive to the idea to naming people. Romeo Saganash has repeatedly mentioned to me the disappearance of his older brother, which is still an open wound for him and for all the members of his family, especially his mother.

Ms. Wilson, you drew a parallel with Remembrance Day, and I can't help but tell you that if, by any chance, you have an ancestor who fought in the First World War and his first name begins with the letter “C”, I found the name of a C. Wilson on a war memorial in Longueuil. You can go to my Facebook page if you want to see it. I had the chance to go to Normandy, in fact to Belgium, to Ypres, and I was able to find his name engraved on a monument in Ypres. It takes on a whole new meaning when you can trace the missing. To this end, many people have stressed the importance of having a day of remembrance, and the dates of September 30 and June 21 have been mentioned.

Our committee has to make a recommendation, but I don't think any of its members would know which date to choose. On a number of occasions, we have even heard that our report should include the need for two days, a Remembrance Day, combined with Orange Shirt Day on September 30, and a solstice celebration day, as a positive celebration. The difference in tone you mentioned between July 1 and Remembrance Day sort of reflects the same dichotomy we are facing.

In your opinion, should we absolutely consider this possibility? Because if we do things by half, the day chosen may turn out to be neither fish nor fowl, a bittersweet day. Personally, I wonder about how these days would be funded. Shouldn't we ensure that we have the necessary funding, which would at least be related to the proposed activities designed to raise awareness about the issues?

Mr. Chartier, you can add comments, of course, if you wish.

[Marie Wilson]

I think it is important to have two separate days, because they do not have the same purpose and they are not designed in the same spirit at all.

You mentioned a lot of things, but I think it ultimately takes two separate days, and each day has to have a completely different goal. I have always considered National Indigenous Peoples Day to be a day of recognition, as set out in the Constitution of Canada, the recognition that Canada's indigenous peoples have a special place in this country. Indigenous people are specifically mentioned, just like English and French.

National Indigenous Peoples Day has always reflected this recognition, but what we are proposing is to recognize, first, a big secret, as our society experienced it until very recently.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Absolutely.

[Marie Wilson]

The comments we have heard most often through our commission's activities are: “I had no idea”, “I knew nothing about any of this” and “no one has ever talked about it”.

So there is a lot of catching up to do in terms of what we know about each other and, above all, the damage we have done to each other. That is why I am talking about a second day specifically devoted to this, which provides

remedial learning they need.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Of course. Does it need to have a specific budget as well?

[Marie Wilson]

A budget?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Should it be provided with a specific budget?

[Marie Wilson]

No, I haven't thought about a budget, nor did we, with the time we had, do a blue ribbon analysis of the costs of any of our calls to action, but we do know—and I heard the previous speakers say so as well—that there's a huge cost in doing nothing. I know that the status quo without this day has allowed us to be in significant ignorance of each other and of some of our own history.

I think creating space and opportunity for people to know each other better, to build relationships, to create a wider community opens doors to other possibilities that have the potential of a net financial benefit, rather than the perpetual deficit we see.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Agreed. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

I see Mr. Chartier. Quickly, you have one minute.

[Clément Chartier]

I think June 21 should stay as is. If there is to be a second day, I think it should be in September. It should be a day of reflection, dialogue and commemorative ceremonies. I think there should be a modest budget for local communities and particularly schools to apply for, so they can have events that mark that day. It shouldn't be just a holiday when nobody does anything. There should be an opportunity for people who want to do something to be able to do something.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That brings us to the end of this meeting. I want to thank this panel again for sharing all your experiences with us.

We are going to adjourn, and then we will be going in camera to a scheduling committee. I'm going to ask people to move out of the room quickly.

The meeting is adjourned.