Canadian Heritage Committee on Jan. 29th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We are going to begin now. We are here for the 138th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Welcome to everyone. Welcome back and to our new meeting space here in the West Block.

We are continuing our study today of Bill C-369, which is on a national indigenous peoples day. We have with us from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, the president Natan Obed and political adviser Tim Argetsinger. We have with us from the Native Women's Association of Canada, Virginia Lomax, legal counsel, and Casey Hunley, policy adviser.

We'll go in the order that you appear on the agenda. We will begin with ITK.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik. Thank you. It's an honour to be here this afternoon. I look forward to our conversation.

In relation to this particular bill, first, any time that we can celebrate indigenous peoples in this country we should take every opportunity to do so. The ongoing conversations about reconciliation, and the way in which the Canadian government understands its obligations on the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the way in which our self-determination meets federal structures, are all in flux, I'd say, and will be for some time. It is my hope that, with a recognition of indigenous peoples and a day that is specifically for the recognition of indigenous peoples, we can continue this conversation on reconciliation. It can be a day to ensure that we are getting our messages across to one another, and that the country can recognize its indigenous peoples and celebrate us, and in the same way we can educate Canadians about indigenous peoples.

To start there, too often the term encompasses all indigenous peoples in this country, or previously aboriginal peoples, especially under section 35 of the Constitution. We can replace that language with who we actually are, which is first nations, Inuit and Métis. The first recommendation that ITK brings forward is that the name of the bill itself recognize and incorporate the actual names of our peoples into the bill rather than having it be just indigenous peoples. Doing that would force Canadians to understand that there is a complexity of different nations and different groups of peoples in this country, and also ties back directly to section 35 of the Constitution, where it says there are three aboriginal peoples of Canada: first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Perhaps we in this room all understand the complexities of that conversation, but for Inuit we often are lumped in with other ideologies of other indigenous peoples in this country, and many people don't understand the difference between first nations, Inuit and Métis. So this, I think, is a great opportunity for us to be very specific about who we are talking about when we're talking about an indigenous peoples day. That term is used in the United Nations context. It is a global term, but I would hope that in Canadian legislation we would be focusing on those indigenous peoples who are recognized under section 35 of the Constitution. There are other places and other venues where we celebrate globally the role of indigenous peoples across all nations.

Another consideration is in relation to what the day is for. It would be, in our position, much better for the day to be positive and be forward-looking than to be a remembrance day of sorts for certain grievances in the past—although history will be, of course, a part of the overarching conversation. I know there are direct links between the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and this particular piece of legislation. I don't want to lose those entirely, but I do want Canadians and first nations, Inuit and Métis to have the ability to talk about the positive and the great strength that we bring to Canadian society, and the great leaders we have within our communities, and the visions we have for the future as Canadians but also as indigenous peoples exercising our right to self-determination.

Whenever this day happens, where it is and where it falls on the calendar, I think, is secondary to those first two points: one, that it recognizes the complexity of the indigenous peoples of this country by stating first nations, Inuit and Métis; and two, that it is an educational, and a positive and celebratory holiday rather than one that just marks particular human rights abuses or genocides that have happened in this country.

That isn't to say that we wouldn't talk about those things. It's just that I believe, for the moment in time that we're in and the appetite that I know Canadians have to learn more about first nations, Inuit and Métis, that it might be the best use of this particular statutory holiday.

Those are my remarks. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to the Native Women's Association of Canada, with Virginia Lomax and Casey Hunley, please.

[Virginia Lomax, Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Bonjour, kwe and good afternoon.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Since 1974, NWAC has been the chosen national representative of grassroots indigenous women, girls and gender diverse people. We represent status, non-status and disenfranchised first nations on and off reserve, Métis and Inuit women, girls and gender diverse people among our membership. We defend their rights to advocate for their voices to be heard.

Today, we're standing with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada to create two statutory holidays in Canada for indigenous peoples.

First, NWAC supports the creation of a statutory holiday to celebrate indigenous peoples. Nationally recognizing and valuing National Indigenous Peoples Day as a statutory holiday is an opportunity to demonstrate reconciliation. Canada must dedicate time to draw countrywide attention to all indigenous peoples' beautifully rich and diverse cultures. This deserves to be celebrated.

Indigenous people deserve to be a celebratory focal point: to have the opportunity to publicly share, honour and reconnect with accomplishments and achievements with the eyes and ears of the country watching and listening. Dedicating a day to celebrating indigenous peoples gives Canadians the opportunity to learn about the cultural diversity and vibrancy of all indigenous peoples in Canada. It's time to listen, and it's time to celebrate.

Currently, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory, they celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day as a statutory holiday in order to “recognize and acknowledge the valuable contribution of Aboriginal Peoples to the healthy development of our communities, territory and country” and to celebrate “the unique heritage, diverse cultures, and outstanding achievements of Indigenous peoples across Canada”. Indigenous peoples and their cultures are worth celebrating, without question.

Secondly, NWAC stands by the TRC's call for a statutory holiday of truth and reconciliation, on October 1. We must annually honour and commemorate the children who attended residential schools: those who survived, and those who did not.

The TRC's call to action number 80 states that a statutory holiday permits families to participate in a day of honouring together. It can help families reflect on the critical bonds of love that exist between parents and children, a bond that is fundamental to living a good life, and one so heavily interrupted by residential schools. It provides children with agency to articulate that love that they need from their parents, while also giving parents an opportunity to reflect on the horrors of having a child forcibly removed.

In order to move forward in an era of reconciliation, we must honour and heal as individuals, as communities and as nations. We need to remember the previous and ongoing impacts of colonization. Residential schools, the sixties scoop and other assimilative strategies cannot be forgotten or ignored, and we cannot forget. We need to dedicate time to educate, to reflect and to recognize the journey toward reconciliation, and this must be nationwide.

Thirdly, NWAC strongly recommends the creation of two separate statutory holidays, the first being National Indigenous Peoples Day, which is a day of celebration, a day to recognize indigenous peoples' stories that are full of vibrant and diverse cultures with significant contributions not just to their communities and not just to Canada, but to the world. The second is a national day of truth and reconciliation, which is a day of reflection and remembrance, a day to honour and to educate Canadians on the past and present impacts of colonization and to acknowledge the ongoing intergenerational trauma affecting our communities today.

Combining a day of celebration with a day of reconciliation, in our view, is inappropriate and disrespectful. I'd like to leave you with a thought to help put this into context the way we see it. Would anyone in this room ever consider combining Canada Day with Remembrance Day?

Chi-Miigwech. Nia:wen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

We will now move into questions and answers.

Mr. Boissonnault, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Randy Boissonnault, Edmonton Centre, Lib.]

Thank you all for your testimony.

Natan, thank you so much for coming and sharing your thoughts with us.

How would you see that we could do something celebratory on a day other than National Indigenous Peoples Day that would be forward-looking? So if we looked at September 30, if we looked at a day in the fall, how could we commemorate and respect the TRC's calls to action and do what you are suggesting to us today, which is to be positive and forward-looking? How do we commemorate and also look to the future?

[Natan Obed]

That's an excellent question. The Native Women's Association of Canada has put it very well in relation to the difficulties with mixing the two, recognizing past human rights violations and abuses but also recognizing the vibrancy of indigenous peoples in this country.

I've celebrated Indigenous Peoples Day, formerly National Aboriginal Day, since my childhood, and that day is one of celebration. I've never considered it to be a day on which we're looking back at a particular point in time. It's just that we're here, we're resilient and we have so much to celebrate. Orange Shirt Day and the growing interest of Canadians in understanding residential schools and perhaps other issues such as relocation, I think, are things that Canadians will want more and more as people understand exactly what happened.

It is really hard to combine the two, and as far as a day in a calendar year goes, I'm afraid I'm of little use to you in recommending which day that might be, but it is important that whatever this bill ends up with, what day, that there be a clear definition between the two, and that somehow we come to terms with both of those issues.

I'm sorry that I don't have a better solution.

[Randy Boissonnault]

That's great. I just wanted your thoughts. I appreciate that. It's no secret that I'm in favour of two days. I'm in favour of keeping National Indigenous Peoples Day as it is and having another day for the great thinking and the respect and honour we do to indigenous peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, and that we have to commemorate this.

I was struck by the testimony and I was speaking with colleagues who were struck by the testimony of indigenous and non-indigenous children who thought Orange Shirt Day was just a day when you put on an orange shirt. They need to know why. We all need to know why. We have to go into the heart of this issue and we have to have a day in our calendar that says we have to pause and think about this. I don't buy the money arguments. People are going to get paid anyway.

So let's pause and have everybody.... It's $11 million. Are we worth spending $11 million on to commemorate this part of our history? Yes, absolutely.

Virginia and NWAC, thank you for that moving testimony. How can we preserve the best of National Indigenous Peoples Day and also commemorate what needs to be commemorated with a new day?

[Virginia Lomax]

The clearest answer that comes to my mind is by having them separate. I can't really think of a better answer than to have two separate occasions for two very separate purposes.

[Randy Boissonnault]

That's fantastic.

You also mentioned that it was important for you to look forward but to commemorate. How would you see September 30 unfolding as a new statutory holiday? What would you like to see take place on a day like that?

[Virginia Lomax]

I think we would really like to see, at least initially, a strong emphasis on education. I think you put into context very well that a lot of folks don't even understand what Orange Shirt Day is. If there is going to be a separate day for honouring, commemorating and remembering residential schools and the sixties scoop, that needs to be combined with education on what those things are and what those things meant, and what they continue to mean. I would put a strong emphasis on coupling that with educational initiatives. If there can be suggestions to add to curriculum, to schools around those days, that might be a good place to start.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Learning kits across the country that can be used in classrooms.

[Virginia Lomax]

Yes.

[Randy Boissonnault]

You'd be in favour, then, of making sure the day is a day when children are in school.

[Virginia Lomax]

I don't have any opinion on that one way or another, at this point. Growing up in Saskatchewan, I don't remember ever being at school on Remembrance Day. We were in ceremonies across the town. One of the big things that happened in my hometown was that the ceremony happened inside the school. Despite the fact that we were technically off, our parents still brought us to the school to learn and to honour and to remember.

I think that's certainly something that could be repeated on this day.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Thank you.

Natan, how else can we be more careful with our language? The government term is “indigenous”. Every time I have the opportunity to say “first nations, Métis and Inuit”, that's what I do. How else can we be sensitive to and mindful of the language we use here in government?

[Natan Obed]

There is no pan-indigenous language. Any language you might use that a certain first nation, Inuit or Métis person has used is from their community and from their society. For Inuit, this isn't Turtle Island, although we respect the first nations who describe the world in that way.

The complexity of indigenous people's world view in this country, first nations, Inuit and Métis, reflects that of any major ethnic group of people in terms of society and religion. When you talk about ceremony, when you talk about these things, they are for a specific portion of first nations, Inuit and Métis in this country. They are not for all. There is virtually no statement you can make that encompasses the religious or social beliefs of all indigenous peoples of the country at once. Refraining from those types of blanket statements gets you closer to the respect from all first nations, Inuit and Métis.

[Randy Boissonnault]

I will say to you both, in the Cree language that I'm learning, tatawaw—that is, welcome, there is room for everyone—and hay-hay. You're both leaders, and your organizations are leaders. Thank you for walking with us on this journey.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Shields for seven minutes, please.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate your being here to inform us and educate us on these particular issues. I would just follow up a little bit on your explanation of the three rather than the one. I think you have been doing it as you've been asked to clarify it, and it has been very interesting.

Would you like to expand on that more? We haven't heard this before. This is new information for us. You devolved that conversation from.... We talked about indigenous, and you're talking about something different. Could you expand on that a little bit more, please?

[Natan Obed]

You have to understand that the differences between first nations, Inuit and Métis within the federal context are astoundingly difficult to understand. There are very few people in this country, even in the legal profession, who could articulate the way in which each of the three indigenous peoples of this country interact with the Crown, or interact with provinces and territories.

We didn't make up this complexity. Often it was based on the natural resources of the particular area, the provincial or territorial governments of the time, or the federal government at the time when they needed something from our lands. It's needlessly complex. It's not of our own creation, and to push back against this, we must say that in the Constitution there are three indigenous peoples: first nations, Inuit and Métis.

For us, the way we interact with the federal government is through modern treaties, land claim agreements. They are the connection between us and the Crown. For many indigenous people in this country, it's the Indian Act. We don't fall under the Indian Act. Different legislation and different rules apply to different segments of the indigenous population in this country, and therefore, having a pan-indigenous approach often excludes or minimizes the experience of certain groups of indigenous peoples in this country.

For decades, the Inuit heard about indigenous or aboriginal investments from the federal government, through budgets or through other areas, that didn't ever go to Inuit communities. There's an easy way that the federal government can talk about aboriginal or indigenous peoples while still excluding certain first nations, Inuit or Métis interests within that.

A way to push back against that is to forcibly state that these are the three indigenous peoples under the Constitution in this country and to use that terminology. That allows for the next level of conversation to happen: Why is there a difference? What is the difference? How do we appreciate and then respond to that difference? Just having the name Inuit within this piece of legislation would be a tremendous win for the Inuit in this country.

We still struggle for a basic understanding of who we are. I think most Canadians know that there are Inuit in this country. Perhaps they refer to us with a different term, but they know that we live in the Arctic, that we're symbolic and that we're good artists, probably, but very few Canadians know anything more than that. We have to reinforce over time that we are part of the indigenous community in this country but we are not first nations, and we are not Métis, and we have a very different relationship with the federal government.

We are one step closer to all of those realities when you pull “indigenous” out and you replace it with “first nations, Inuit and Métis”.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I really appreciate that, because you have clarified it more. I think that has definite significance in the sense, as you're suggesting, that this is a starting place, one of the places that it could be used, which leads to that other conversation, and obviously then the education that would follow from it as it is identified that way.

I know you did respond a bit in the sense of questioning the timing. You said you grew up celebrating a specific day, but you were not clear on when that day was.

[Natan Obed]

Formerly National Aboriginal Day, and now National Indigenous Peoples Day, is June 21.

We receive funding from the federal government in the community I grew up in to have certain celebrations on that day. Our Inuit organizations across Inuit Nunangat, which is our homeland, do activities on that day as well, and often it's a day off work.

There are different ways across our homeland that we celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day on that particular day that is shared with the Government of Canada as of right now.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

So it is a day that you remember, a specific date. That's all I wanted to know, because that's been a date that has been mentioned numerous times—June 21.

I just wanted to clarify that that would be a date that would fit into what you have been doing.

[Natan Obed]

Yes.