Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much for your submissions.

Grand Chief John, thank you very much for the mentoring you've given to me over 20-something years now. We worked together to attempt to move child welfare into the responsibility of indigenous communities and away from government. I think some of the principles you're talking about here are principles we worked with at that point in time.

I'd like to pursue that a little more. You said that you support the tone of the legislation. You've talked about an urgency and a need to get this through royal assent. We've heard that from just about every witness who has come before us. There is a sense of urgency with respect to that.

My concern is that we get the values right. I've said this, that in most cases.... In those first clauses, clauses 1 through 11, we have to reflect the values and intent that come with that. My hope is that, at that point in time, the irony of our making decisions with respect to this will be turned over to indigenous communities making the operational decisions. We have some responsibilities with respect to legislation, obviously. My hope is that the application of this will be similar to the guidance you gave me before. This will actually be turned over to the indigenous communities to be able to do that.

Are there any problems with that model?

I'll just articulate that a little more. This legislation has a commissioner and three directors who would be responsible for articulating the values and carrying them out. We all believe and assume that those should be indigenous people who represent our three different cultures. If that is the case, does it make sense, from your legal training, your background and your work with the United Nations, that if those values are correct, they'll be articulated and carried out appropriately by the commissioner and three directors? The other option presented to us is that it should be divided up in terms of geographic distribution instead.

[Grand Chief Edward John]

To me, it's more of a secondary issue than a priority issue. My perspective has always been on community. That's where the challenges are, and that's where ultimately the solutions lie.

It's the grandmas, grandpas, moms and dads who teach us today. Twelve years ago, my father passed away. I remember his teachings and the way he took us out onto the land as children to teach us about plants and animals, about where we live, to be aware of what it is and how we are. We are so deeply connected to the land that we can feel the land and what is on that land, even though we can't see the animals on it. These are the teachings inherent in the way these are being taught.

I'm not sure what a national commission may be able to contribute. I think it's maybe to help articulate and guide from a national perspective the commitments that Canada made. I think in that regard it's important for that purpose, but for the purposes of ensuring the survival of a language in a community, that is really something that needs to be done in the community and supported by the government. I can't overstress how important that approach is to me.

Maybe, since you're talking about these articles and the draft of the bill, clause 9, for example, this idea of arrangements with the provinces.... I think, if there is to be anything like that, it has to be in consultation with the indigenous peoples in that area. Federal and provincial governments should not be in the business of coming to agreements with each other about our languages. We need to be there at the table. There should be tripartite agreements, if there is to be some agreement. We have so many bilateral agreements between Canada and the provinces where we're not involved. Sometimes it's to the detriment of our people and communities.

We've passed the day when the two governments can come together and make these bilateral arrangements that impact our people. I'm more in favour of ensuring that indigenous peoples are right there at the table all the way through. If any signatories are required on these agreements, there should always be an indigenous signatory required.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

How would we ensure, in your model of resources going directly to communities, that the resources are allocated and controlled by indigenous people? Organizationally, how would that work?

[Grand Chief Edward John]

There are some really important statements in here about language plans. These are essential and are going to be required. Territory-wide plans and community development plans are always essential.

I'm thinking, if I understand your question, it's more around how, through the national level, they are—

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

It gets to the local level.

[Grand Chief Edward John]

Yes. As I said, the only example that I can point to right now is where the department, Indigenous Services Canada, has direct, bilateral agreements with every first nations community to provide funding to that community for education, for example, not through some other source like the Canada Council grants.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I was also interested in your comment that, consistent with the UN declaration—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That brings you to the end of your time. You can have a quick comment, but you won't have time for a question and an answer.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

My quick comment was that I liked the notion—consistent with the UN declaration—of the need for a 10-year action plan. Hopefully that action plan would also have goals and metrics so we get some evaluation and ensure that we're achieving the intent of the values of this legislation.

[Grand Chief Edward John]

I completely agree with that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to both of our witnesses. It was really helpful to have your testimony today. Thank you for your contributions.

That's going to bring this meeting to an end. We will be back at it again next week.

This meeting is adjourned.