Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Vidal, go ahead, for five minutes, please.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Poitras, thank you for being here today. The conversation has been very valuable.

I'm going to echo a little bit of what Mr. Powlowski said, as the second questioner today. By the time you get this deep into the lineup, it's getting difficult to come up with new and creative questions that haven't already been asked by colleagues.

I'm going to change the flavour around the education a little bit. You're probably going to say, “I've been there, done that already, Mr. Vidal”, but I'm going to hit it again anyway.

You talked about some of the good work by the treaty commissioner in Saskatchewan. I come from northern Saskatchewan, and I grew up with a lot of first nations neighbours, friends, teammates and colleagues. I worked with them in my time as mayor and whatnot. I guess where I'm coming from is that I realize that's not the case for all Canadians from coast to coast. I've had that privilege of having that experience and that relationship.

You talked a lot about education. In your opening comments, you even talked about the TRC recommendation number 93, which the education component should be part of. My comments the other day were maybe a little bit expressing frustration around the picking of number 94 and not having 93 done with it, because the education component is so important. In your opening comments, you talked about this being a symbolic component.

My question—and it's following up a little on what MP Kwan said as well—is beyond just the citizenship guide. There are many people who will never swear a citizenship oath because they were born in Canada. There are many people who are citizens of Canada who will never go through the new process that we're talking about now. It's really important that we educate those people, as well, to some of the history and relationships.

You referred to residential schools and the story about your hairdresser. I want to give you the opportunity to talk more about how we become successful at educating all Canadians, not just new citizens, about some of the history, some of the very important aspects of treaties and relationships.

[Regional Chief Marlene Poitras]

As I just mentioned, it's really important that education occurs. Nowadays, there's virtual...all different platforms that can provide education.

I always think of Gord Downie of The Tragically Hip, and how he only learned about the plight of first nations indigenous people when he was an adult. It's really important that you start with the younger ages, but you continue that education until people understand our history and how we came to be, and why there are so many disparities in our community in terms of the suicides, housing issues, addictions, and it goes on and on.

People need to understand where that stems from. To me, education is so important.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Following a bit further down that path, we heard from the minister the other evening about the extensive consultations that were done around this recommendation about this piece of legislation.

In the context of education and some of the work being done around call to action number 93, could you talk about what would be effective in the context of consultation around that—the education component? Is there enough consultation being done around that, and has it started? Who should be involved? What do you see that looking like?

[Regional Chief Marlene Poitras]

I always advocate that for consultation, especially with our leaders, it depends on what aspects you're going to be consulting on. If it's more technical you go to the educators, but if it becomes political then it's important that the leaders are at the table when decisions are being made.

For first nations in the history of this country, decisions have always been made for us. There are also a lot of documents out there that we can extrapolate information from. You have RCAP, you have the red paper in Alberta, and you have the TRC and the missing and murdered indigenous women reports. The list goes on in terms of the reports and the information that's gleaned from those reports. It's important that we don't reinvent the wheel moving forward. It's important that first nations are at the table in any type of consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks very much, Ms. Poitras.

In view of the time, I'm going to ask the indulgence of the Liberal members of our group to forgo the last question so that we may suspend. We'll organize the second hour of the meeting, which will also require dealing with Mr. Viersen's matter. We also don't have too much time to extend the meeting, because I have House duty and I'm sure there are other busy individuals among the committee members as well.

Right now we're going to suspend and prepare for the second part of the meeting.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

We now resume this meeting of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We have presentations now from our next three guests.

We'll start off with National Chief Elmer St. Pierre from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

You have six minutes, Mr. St. Pierre. Please, go ahead.

[National Chief Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thanks a lot, Bob. I see a few people I know, like Lorraine Whitman from the Native Women's Association.

My name is Elmer St. Pierre. I am the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

First of all, it's always been our tradition to offer tobacco when we exchange our views and talk in friendship.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is one of the five national indigenous organizations recognized by the Government of Canada. We represent off-reserve status and non-status, Métis and southern Inuit. CAP is also the federal voice for our provincial and territorial members. We have a long history of having to fight for recognition of our grassroots people. We've been working since 1971. We are celebrating our 50th anniversary this year.

In 2016, the CAP/Daniels decision ruled that non-status Métis are Indians under the Constitution and a federal responsibility.

A few things come to mind. The citizenship oath is a very important symbol. New Canadians should know that the treaties are as important as the Constitution itself. All Canadians should understand that fact. Symbols need to be backed up by action. Treaties are not just in the past. Many communities today don't have recognition or a land claim statement. They need action to protect their rights as indigenous people.

We cannot forget the other 93 calls to action. There are still recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that need action. In 2018 CAP and the Government of Canada signed a political accord to work toward including our people in federal policies. Supporting this accord is also a necessary step toward reconciliation. The political accord is only one of many ways to represent the rights of our people in government policies.

A distinctions-based model is a barrier in our country to our grassroots people. Today we heard a lot of people talking about UNDRIP as well as this body here under the Citizenship Act. Unfortunately CAP has not had the opportunity to be involved in these consultations. We seem to be left out. We got invited to this meeting only in the last week. We don't know who is doing what anymore, and CAP represents our Métis people, and the Constitution does say, “Indians, Métis and Inuit”. At some point—I'm maybe getting off topic—the government has decided that CAP's grassroots people don't fall within that category. We speak for our own people—our membership, our grassroots people—right across Canada from Labrador to B.C.

Education is another big issue. The newcomers should know who we are and what we stand for, because you talk to someone and sometimes they say, “You're an Indian,” and ask if we are an East Indian. We say we're from Canada. We're one of the first peoples. We get talking, and it's really surprising.

One of our biggest problems is—I might as well say it—the racism and discrimination that CAP has to go through to try to get to these meetings. Sometimes it's a last-minute thing. Most of the time we don't even get to speak, and if we do, it's normally about half an hour or an hour before they throw it to us like, “Okay, you have a chance to speak”. That doesn't give us time to put something together.

I wish I could say that I knew more about citizenship, but if we're not consulted on it then how can we put our two cents in, more or less?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. St. Pierre, you're going to be angry with me because I have to interrupt you.

The translation has been interrupted. We're not hearing the French. We're going to see if we can solve that problem right now.

Mr. Clerk, do you know the issue?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Mr. Chair. It seems to have stopped and mysteriously come back.

We'll see if we can continue. I do hear the French interpreters now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Elmer, you have about a minute to go. You can start up again and finish off.

[National Chief Elmer St. Pierre]

At this point in time, Bob, I'd like to thank you. I finally see Cathy McLeod down in the bottom corner there.

Thank you, Cathy. I see a good friend of ours, Lorraine Whitman. I imagine I probably know a few other ones here, but I'd like to thank you for inviting CAP to be at this table.

Hopefully again in future meetings that you're chairing, Bob, we'll be there and we can speak. Give us enough notice ahead of time, because it would be a pleasure to be able to know what's going on in our country, especially with our aboriginal peoples.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks, Elmer.

We move on now, for six minutes, to President Whitman from the Native Women's Association.

Please, go ahead.

[Lorraine Whitman, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Wela'lin, Chair.

Good afternoon. Taluisi Lorraine Whitman, Grandmother White Sea Turtle. I am the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and I am speaking to you today from unceded traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq Lnu people. Kwe kwe.

I would like to thank the Government of Canada, and the members of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in particular, for inviting me here today to talk about Bill C-8 and the proposal to change the oath of Canadian citizenship to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples.

It has been more than five years since Justice Murray Sinclair released the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after its multi-year study of the horrors that occurred behind the walls of Canada’s Indian residential schools. I commend the Government of Canada for committing to act upon all of the 94 calls to action contained in that report.

I also understand that in just two days you will be doing your line-by-line review of the proposed Bill C-8 and that I am speaking to you at what can only be described as the last minute. I hope that the members of Parliament sitting around the table will excuse the fact that NWAC seems to be offering an opinion so late in the day. The truth is that it was only last week that we were advised about the contents of Bill C-8 and the committee's work.

If you have further legislation that will affect the lives of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada, we would be pleased to be part of the discussion right from the start, at the same time as you hear from the male-led indigenous organizations. I urge you to keep in mind that NWAC, which has been in existence since 1974, is the largest organization representing indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people in Canada. When you consult with us, you are consulting with grassroots first nations, Métis and Inuit women in every part of Canada.

Moving on to the matters at hand, we are extremely glad to see that the government is going forward on this recommendation of the TRC. I believe that all of us around the table would agree that far too many Canadians who were actually born in this country lack a basic understanding of the history of colonialization that shaped the relationship between Canada and the indigenous people. Too few Canadians have been taught about the importance of first nations, Métis and Inuit, not just to the history of this country’s formation but to the present-day realities.

Most do not realize that when ore is extracted from the ground, it is being taken from our traditional territory, and that in many cases, it has been extracted based on the agreements we call treaties. They do not know that when trees are cut, it is because we have agreed to share the bounty of our ancestors with settlers. To have that reflected in the oath of citizenship is indeed an important step to righting some of the wrongs and injustices that were revealed by the inquiries of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

We agree with the changes in wording you have made in the original TRC call to action to recognize the three distinctive groups of indigenous peoples who call Canada home. I think it is fair to say that indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, despite their resilience, have suffered exponentially under colonialism. The national inquiry that examined the root causes of why so many of us are murdered or go missing found that there has been nothing short of a genocide. For that reason, we believe the realities of gender must also be reflected in the oath of citizenship and accompanying guidebook and that all new Canadians must affirm that they understand the importance of indigenous women to the land we now call Canada.

I close today by commending your efforts. I hope that this legislation finally becomes law, five years after the release of the report of the TRC. I look forward to the day when I can congratulate you for fulfilling all the calls to action of the TRC and the calls for justice of the national inquiry.

Wela'lioq.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to my words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you. That was very well presented, Ms. Whitman.

We now have, for a final six-minute presentation, Mr. Cardinal.

Éric, please go ahead.

[Éric Cardinal, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify in the context of your work. I am doing so in a personal capacity while wearing several hats.

I wear the indigenous law lecturer's hat first. For the past 15 years, I have had the great pleasure of passing on my passion for indigenous law to university students. Currently, I teach the course entitled Canadian Law and Indigenous Peoples at the University of Montréal.

I am also vice-president of Acosys Consulting Services, an indigenous company that offers training and coaching services in governance for indigenous communities. In this capacity, I participate in negotiation tables with the federal government. In all, I have been working for more than 25 years in the field of indigenous law and policy.

The issue of the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights is therefore part of my daily life. I am very honoured to be able to speak here today on Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94).

First, let me commend the initiative behind this bill, which responds to the government's commitment to implement the commission's calls for action and foster reconciliation between indigenous people and Canadians. I respectfully submit, however, that the text as proposed in the bill does not truly reflect the intent of the legislation.

The purpose of the bill, as outlined in its accompanying summary, is to include in the Citizenship Act a solemn promise to respect the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

However, the new wordings of the declarations proposed for both the oath and solemn affirmation do not require the person to promise respect for indigenous rights, but rather respect for the Constitution. May I remind you of the text in question:

[…] I swear to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

We swear to uphold the Constitution, but we do not swear to uphold aboriginal or treaty rights. Some may say it's a theoretical or linguistic nuance, but I don't think so. On the contrary, it is a fundamental nuance, given the principles of nation-to-nation relations between the Canadian Crown and aboriginal peoples.

As you are surely aware, aboriginal rights are known as inherent rights, that is, they exist independently of state recognition, whether by the Constitution or otherwise. The oath should therefore simply lead the person to promise respect for aboriginal and treaty rights, without a reference to the Constitution being necessary.

Moreover, the term Constitution itself is not used in an accurate and correct manner. Now it is the meticulous professor of law speaking. In Canadian law, the Constitution is the body of law that organizes Canada's institutions and determines the fundamental rules that govern society. When we say “the Constitution”, we are not talking about a single document. The Constitution is a mixture of laws, orders in council, court decisions and constitutional conventions.

Finally, let me also point out that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is itself a promise made by the Crown to indigenous peoples. This promise has not been fully kept. On the one hand, there are still many nations that are negotiating or awaiting recognition of their rights by the state. On the other hand, in interpreting section 35, the Supreme Court has limited its scope by allowing the government, in some cases, to infringe upon indigenous and treaty rights.

To be fully consistent with the concept of reconciliation and the principles of nation-to-nation relations, I believe that the reference to the Constitution should be removed and that the declaration should simply, directly, include a solemn promise to respect the indigenous and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Thank you very much, and congratulations for the work you are doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you very much, and you're well within the time allotted.

To accommodate the rest of the meeting, including Mr. Viersen's matter, we're going to hear from each of the parties with a six-minute round of questioning. I think that will leave us enough time to deal with the other matter.

We'll have Ms. McLeod, Mr. van Koeverden, Ms. Normandin and then Ms. Kwan.

Cathy, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, and I'm very pleased to see some familiar faces here today.

I appreciate your testimony because sometimes what seems like a simple bill turns out to be a little more complicated, and specific words obviously really matter within the bills.

First of all, I want to pick up on National Chief St. Pierre's point about this being an important symbol, and from the comments from all the individual parties it sounds very well supported. This seems like a well-supported bill moving forward. Of course, there's some conversation around whether there should be some massaging of the actual words, and there have been a number of different iterations.

Even though the government has not implemented UNDRIP legally, they have made a commitment to the concepts of the UN declaration, which talked to the issue of free, prior and informed consent. Mr. St. Pierre and Ms. Whitman, to what degree have you been kept apprised of the various iterations and language this has taken from what was originally within the TRC?

As you can see, it's had a number of iterations. Do you believe your organization should be completely engaged and be part of giving consent to move things forward?

Maybe, Ms. Whitman and then Mr. St. Pierre, you could speak about the degree to which you have been engaged in the process, which clearly the Liberal government has said it would do.

[Lorraine Whitman]

Wela'lin.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to answer the question.

We had signed an accord with the Crown in 2019, saying that we would be sitting at the tables with our other INOs so that we would be able to be included, as we do represent and we do advocate for the women and girls and our 2SLGBTQQIA+ community. I feel that being a part of that and sitting at the table answers the questions of our grassroots women.

As you know with a national inquiry and the finding of there being a genocide, it certainly makes it difficult for me as a leader if I'm not at the table speaking and advocating for the women and defending their rights. This is what I'm asked to do on their part. We certainly need to be at the tables and to be included. It's from the lens and the views of the indigenous women. Our society has been run in a matrilineal way, where the women have been the leaders in the system and in the group. When we're excluded from the table, it makes it difficult for us to be able to truly start putting our voices at the table, speaking for the women.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Were you given the different changes in language and the reasons? Were you part of the discussion around the language and the language changing?

[Lorraine Whitman]

No, I hadn't been included in any of that part. Just two weeks ago, as I mentioned, we were included in this conversation, which I certainly appreciate. Thank you.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

National Chief St. Pierre, what about you?

As we say, we've had different iterations of wording. Would you say your organization has been included in every step? The government has made a pretty significant commitment on how it's going to move forward and codevelop legislation. Of course this is a [Technical difficulty—Editor], so it should have been easy to have a very comprehensive process.

[National Chief Elmer St. Pierre]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod. No, we haven't....

As Lorraine said, about a week and a half ago we got the invitation, and as well, we got an invitation that we could speak at this meeting. Prior to that, we had no contacts. We've never had consultations on the new Citizenship Act, nor have we been consulted on any of the things that are happening with the Liberal government. Sometimes it's hard to even get in touch with Minister Bennett.

Our big thing is that if we don't know what's happening and we're not sitting at these tables like this one here, how are we ever going to know? Our people are not being represented.

I think you mentioned something about UNDRIP. With that, we had no consultation. It was MNC, Assembly of First Nations and ITK. They were the ones who put UNDRIP together. We had, I think it was, a total of three hours to be able to sit and talk, and it was only word changes that we were able to do because we didn't have the time to get right into the whole....

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think it would be fair to say that although you are supporting this legislation because it is something we've been waiting five years for.... Again, it's a simple piece of legislation that did not meet what the Liberals portray as codevelopment, or even any form of free, prior and informed consent, which, of course, article 19 of the UN declaration calls for. Free, prior and informed consent before legislation is tabled that impacts indigenous—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Ms. McLeod, you're about a minute over. I'm sorry.