Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 28th, 2021

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see all of you via Zoom, as always. I'm the president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national representational organization for Canada's 65,000 Inuit.

I can remember first meeting with the minister responsible, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, in early 2016 to discuss the revisions to the citizenship oath and the revisions to the accompanying citizenship guide. We are now five years into this conversation. Really, we're only talking about a paragraph. I know there are other political considerations, but honestly, it's been a long time. There is no legislative requirement for amendments to the citizenship guide. We are here to say, “Please, can we get on with it?”

Implementing calls to action 93 and 94 seems like something that has been universally accepted. It doesn't appear that there is any sort of political push-back on the concept of explicitly stating “first nations, Inuit and Métis”, and also revising the current guide to be more reflective of the respect that the Government of Canada has towards first nations, Inuit and Métis, and the way in which we present ourselves to new Canadians and all Canadians.

ITK did put forward its particular position and version of the citizenship oath. I'll read it. It's a paragraph:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties, agreements and constructive arrangements with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

We took the established wording within the UN declaration when it comes to the ways in which nation-states interact with indigenous peoples, reflecting self-determination. We put it into the oath. That's, just simply, what we did.

It's been through a number of different computations. We at ITK don't have a negative opinion of the oath as it was reintroduced in October 2020, but what we have put forward was trying to help and trying to simplify what always is a tough process.

In regard to the citizenship guide, ITK and Inuit regions have provided considerable input into a revised version of the citizenship guide. Most likely it won't be made public until after the oath has changed, at least that's what we've been hearing. In the meantime, and over the last four years, new Canadians continue to study an outdated version of the guide. I know that isn't necessarily what this committee has been struck to consider, but the delays mean that thousands of people every year are getting introduced to Canada, and to first nations, Inuit and Métis, with outdated materials. That just doesn't seem consistent with the good intent that I know exists at the political level.

We'll continue to work with the Government of Canada to ensure that the citizenship guide reflects the way in which Inuit would like to be described to new Canadians. We look forward to seeing this particular bill pass into law so the oath can be amended to include first nations, Inuit and Métis in the new law.

Nakurmiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much, Mr. Obed.

We'll go now to a six-minute round of questioning, starting with Ms. Dancho, and then Mr. Powlowski, Madame Bérubé and Ms. Mathyssen, in that order.

Ms. Dancho, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the expert witnesses for the feedback. It was wonderful to hear your remarks, and I really appreciate your frank feedback.

I'm located on Treaty 1 territory in the homeland of the Métis nation here in Winnipeg.

I want to ask Ms. Wesley-Esquimaux about the centre. I have not had the opportunity to go there. I would assume that there is probably limited visitor capacity with COVID. Could you update the committee on the progress being made with the centre and what that experience is like for newcomers to Canada coming to see that, or MPs? Those on this panel who would be interested I think would love a tour. Could you give a little bit of information on what that experience is like at the centre?

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux]

I think it's a great experience. There's a lot of educational opportunity there. There's usually a whole team of people who are present. There's a bit of an archive right in the centre so that people can come. It is a small centre, though—you're right—in terms of how many people they can actually squeeze into the facility.

We have elders who are present on a regular basis. There are a lot of conversations that are ongoing and have been ongoing. We're now in the process of actually hiring a new executive director, so there are some changes happening there.

Otherwise, the doors are open. Generally speaking, when there is no pandemic, the doors are open for people to come in at any time. There are a lot of conversations that are available to them and materials and small gifts that they can take away with them.

Usually I'm there for business. I'm not actually there as a guest learning from the educational processes, but I have sat in on some of them, and I think they're very engaging. Also, there's dance. Actually, as I said [Technical difficulty—Editor].

There's a lot of opportunity for Canadians to pop in and actually learn something about the history of the residential school experience. There's an archive that's being constantly built on. Those materials are increasingly accessible to people across the country, whether at educational institutes or organizations.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Wonderful. It's located right at the University of Manitoba campus, I believe.

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux]

You're right. It's at the University of Manitoba.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

That really complements the University of Manitoba's native studies faculty, which is, I believe, the largest in the country. It's really quite a hub of indigenous history. We're very fortunate in Winnipeg.

Thank you for that. I appreciate those remarks.

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux]

You're welcome.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I have a quick question for Ms. Wilson and Mr. Obed.

When the minister was here, we were talking a little bit about—and Mr. Obed, you highlighted this—the length of time it has taken for us to get here. This is the third iteration of the bill and the third minister. We've been talking about it for five years. We're finally at the committee stage. Hopefully, we can get this all the way to the end before any sort of election or what have you.

I just want to see if you could comment on your thoughts on the progress being made on this bill particularly, but also in general with regard to the 94 in here. My understanding is that, if this passes, it will still be only seven that have been officially implemented at the provincial and federal levels. Could you comment just generally on your thoughts on this bill and the general progress on the 94 calls to action?

Who would like to go first?

[Natan Obed]

I can start. This bill is, I guess, indicative of where we are on a number of the different calls to action. It has been hit-and-miss with regard to the way in which the federal government has chosen to respond to many calls to action. The Government of Canada and the ministers responsible will quote metrics and cite percentages in relation to the implementation of calls to action. I can't believe in those figures. The tangible outcomes versus having part of your department considering a particular call to action or calls for justice from MMIWG are two very different things.

Would the minister say that calls 93 and 94 are complete because the government is working on them—as the government has been working on them for the last five years? The world hasn't changed yet. We haven't even changed the citizenship guide yet.

I wish we were able to work together in a more honest way on the implementation of not only the TRC but also the MMIWG, and figure out how we can work together to outcomes rather than work together ad nauseam in infinity.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I appreciate that, and I think you make a really good point about statistics versus the outcome and working together. The real point of this is far beyond statistics. The point is taken on that, Mr. Obed. I appreciate that.

Ms. Wilson, we have about 45 seconds left.

[Marie Wilson]

Well, I would draw your attention to calls to action 53 to 56. They talk very specifically about the creation of a national council for reconciliation. One of its core purposes is to keep an oversight eye on progress and implementation of the other calls to action, but also to create a mechanism for regular tracking and reporting on improvements and consequences—which is what President Obed is talking about—whether it's shifts for the better, or whether we are actually doing worse in some areas. As long as we don't have a mechanism to help us all collectively keep an eye on things, how things are going, we're busily doing things but not necessarily achieving things.

December 15 was the five-year anniversary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. For the first time since that closed, I and my commissioner colleagues Sinclair and Littlechild issued a joint statement in which we basically said that progress is too slow and that there is a need for urgency. Among other things, we have too many survivors who worked for this who are not going to see the results of their labour and their courage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're over time on that.

Mr. Powlowski, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The oath makes reference to the Constitution. Now, I'm a bit curious about why that is. It looks to me like a fairly elegant way of putting a reference to the indigenous population and the rights of the indigenous population into the oath.

We've already heard suggestions from the Bloc—I don't know if all of you were on the previous call—that they want removal of the reference to the Constitution. I wonder what the people from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission think about the reference to the Constitution. Mr. Obed's proposed wording would not have a reference to the Constitution. Is there a need for a reference to the Constitution? Is that desirable?

Ms. Wesley-Esquimaux, I think you mentioned the reference to the Constitution—I thought in a fairly approving way—but maybe you could tell me what you think about that reference.

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux]

Well, just as Natan and Marie said, it's taken so long to get the kinds of recognition and conversations going that are actually going to make a difference for indigenous peoples across Canada. The Constitution [Technical difficulty—Editor] upholding those rights and obligations on behalf of the country.

I don't think it's a bad thing to include the Constitution. I think it reminds people that in fact there is recognition there for indigenous peoples and their rights and their treaties. Anything we can do to continuously draw [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but there's this beeping. I'm not sure if Ms. Wesley-Esquimaux is swearing there or why she's getting beeped out, but....

[Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] rather not have to do the same thing and run around to try to find a [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

I'm sorry. It's interrupting and we're not able to communicate.

[Marie Wilson]

May I jump in and respond to the question?

Cynthia, do you mind...with your forgiveness?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Please go ahead.

[Marie Wilson]

I think this ties into Natan's point, but he'll certainly speak for himself further. I just want to say that in the wording we had in the original call to action, the deficiency of it was that when you speak about treaties, including modern-day treaties, there's a risk that people who don't have something that's actually called a “treaty” would feel excluded, in that negotiations are still ongoing.

The Constitution makes provision for existing and modern-day treaties, so it is very inclusive in that way. One of the things that I think.... They're not different, but it is clearer, I think. It's also clear that the recognition of indigenous rights in the Constitution has been acknowledged by the Canadian courts and by the Supreme Court of Canada in many examples over the past decades. It's an established correlation.

I think one of the valuable things about it is that.... People in their everyday lives in Canada don't register and don't realize that indigenous peoples are rights holders. Their rights are different from, distinct from—not more than or better than, but distinct from—the rights of other Canadians, and that's why it's particularly articulated in the Constitution. We don't see that for all of the other groups or subgroups of people in Canada, so I think it is a good connection in that way.

The last thing I would say is that.... I'm not going to speak to the comment from the member of the Bloc, but there was a reason why I mentioned in my opening remarks that all of the parties, including the Bloc Québécois, spoke to and committed to ongoing reconciliation. If this is an example of where it can be done in action, I would sincerely hope that there would be non-partisan political goodwill to proceed—and quickly.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Let me just clarify. You feel that the reference to the Constitution gives a broader interpretation of who is included within the definition than if the reference to the Constitution weren't there.

[Marie Wilson]

I wouldn't say that—and it's quite a technical legal question, so I don't presume to be equipped to drill down into the legal elements of it—but I do know that people understand that countries have constitutions. People don't necessarily understand that countries have treaties with indigenous peoples, because not everybody does, so I think in a way it's more familiar. It's easier access for people to wrap their heads around what it is they're committing to. I think there's value in that.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have 40 seconds.