Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

If you want me to isolate a period of time that is a few months, I can't offer you an explanation that, obviously, will satisfy you, but again—

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm not saying a few months. I'm saying a few years, from 2018.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I'm sorry. Just recall the time frame we're talking about.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

It was 2018. The board of directors, they started their work in January 2018. That started from January to June of 2018. Then the transitional committee did an additional three months of work after that. You've had all this information, all this work. We're still in 2018. The pandemic hit in 2020. I'm just curious about what happened from 2018 to March 2020. What work was being done?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

We got $126 million to make it happen and then there was also a pandemic. I wouldn't suggest that's nothing. The fact of the matter is that this is before us here today. We've been told by indigenous people across the country that we need to accelerate things, particularly in and around the discoveries of the unmarked graves at residential schools. We've been moving quickly. This is a bill that was put in front of you in June. It's something we'd like to get done. It's a priority of our government. I think it should be a priority of every MP.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

It is. We're being asked—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

We'll go to Mr. Weiler for five minutes.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you also to the minister and officials for being here today.

Minister, one key function of the council is going to be reporting on the progress on reconciliation as well as offering recommendations to advance it. It's really critical that the council has access to documents, data and reports from the government to effectively be able to do their work and report. Actually, call to action 55 calls on the federal government to disclose documents to the council.

I was hoping you could elaborate on what this process will look like, according to section 16, and how it can ensure that the council will have access to all of the information that's needed to inform its work.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

That's an excellent question. It's something that we'll have to make sure we're putting our best foot forward on in providing the documentation that the board asks us to provide.

It's key for us that there's a fluid back-and-forth on how and what we provide to the board members as they request information. That goes through a process of establishing a protocol and constant lines of communication so that information requests don't get lost. Any suggestions, frankly, that this committee would have for strengthening the mechanisms that have been proposed inside the proposed bill would be very much welcomed by us.

One key aspect to this is measuring things. You can't measure things that you can't ascertain or have the information on to back up your conclusions. In my mind, this, the results and the recommendations that will be made by this independent board, hinge on its ability to operate on its own and its ability to have access to documentation from the government in a timely fashion across various ministries. As you would know, the TRC calls asks the entirety of government to deliver. It isn't limited to one or two departments that touch and concern indigenous peoples. It touches on all departments.

I anticipate it will be a challenge, but it's a challenge that we can live up to if we have robust legislation that gets the government to do what it's supposed to do.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for that. I think it is really important to make sure that any information the council will be asking for from our government and future governments will not be blocked.

Certainly just as important as providing the information to do their work is the significance of having the government having to respond to that. That's what subclause 17(3) addresses directly.

From your point of view, what recourse will there be if the government response is deemed insufficient or lacking in the information that appropriately responds to the requests made by the council?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

The ability of the council in the face of a government request that is insufficient.... I think you've seen proof of that, particularly in this very important aspect of our future and our present.

Obviously, being a government in minority, there is the ability to use a level of recourse that has really drastic consequences, if people are truly seized by how important it is to answer these recommendations by the committee. Certainly, folks around the table will probably know the power they have to compel the government to do things in that type of situation. This is also to inform not only government to get on with it but also to have society focused on it. We get a lot of pressure from constituents and from indigenous leadership to get moving on things when things are brought to light.

I believe we're up to the task to the extent that we haven't been up to now. This is an added layer of credibility. It's an added layer of moral authority and imperative for us to move when we're found to be lacking in these areas. I think it's quite forceful.

I don't know what the process would be if the government's response falls short of the legislation. There's always a judicial process, but I think the repercussions are quite severe when constituents make sure that their elected representatives are living up to their expectations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Weiler.

Ms. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question about the mandate of the National Council for Reconciliation, which is necessary but immense in scope. In addition to reporting, which we talked about earlier, one of the expectations of this council is that it will assess and “monitor [...] the progress being made towards reconciliation” and “recommend measures to promote, prioritize and coordinate efforts” towards reconciliation “in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.”

Can you clarify what you mean by “all sectors of Canadian society”? To me, that encompasses everything, literally.

Can you also clarify what you mean by “all governments”? Does that include municipal governments and indigenous governments as well?

In short, I would like to know what is meant in the bill when it refers to Canadian society and governments.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

This is the intent of the provision: the National Council for Reconciliation will be free to choose how it will ensure the response of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and it will be able to provide its views on what works and what does not.

Actually, two-thirds of the calls to action fall under the federal government. There are some that relate to universities, private actors, or provincial governments. Among others, as we know, the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls includes a companion report on Quebec.

Be that as it may, it will be a free choice. The bill shows the breadth of the mission, but it will obviously be up to the members of the National Council for Reconciliation to decide which elements they want to focus on.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I had said that it seemed to me to encompass everything, literally. In the end, my interpretation was right, because that is exactly what it is.

I would also like to talk about funding. Because the mandate is so broad, some concerns have been raised about that. There is a multi-year funding as well as funding to set up this council. How will this work?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

According to our analysis, this will be sufficient for the first few years. The National Council for Reconciliation will be free to make investments and do fundraising. Obviously, it is a non-profit organization. I think $126 million is a pretty big sum for an organization of this size. There will be work to do and the board will have to compensate the people who are hired properly. We know they may ask for more money, but that will have to be looked at in due course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Gill.

Ms. Idlout, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut as follows:]

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐋ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋ, ᐅᖓᓯᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᒥᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ, ᐋ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᓱᖓ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒡᓗᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋ, ᐃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖏᑦ, ᐋ, ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓐ-ᖏᑦᑑᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᐋ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓃᓐᖔᓐᖏᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᔾᔨᕐᓇᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐋ, ᐊᐱᕆᒍᒪᕗᖓ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᖕᒥᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᒋᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓂᖃᕐ-ᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᑦᓯᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

This independent board, I know it will have directors who are indigenous peoples but not indigenous governing nations. How do you see the Crown's relationship to indigenous nations being impacted when indigenous organizations should be working with the indigenous organizations?

[English]

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

If I understand your question correctly, it's a good one. I think a lot of times the tendency has been to say that we're going to create something and then wash our hands of it, and that satisfies the obligation the Crown has towards a particular indigenous group.

Each has its specific relationship that is historical and present in nature, the Inuit-Crown partnership obviously being top of mind, but the treaty relationships as well. They're all nuanced.

I think this commission heightens it. I think it enhances it. I think it enhances it for the civil servants who don't spend their days doing this but have a responsibility to live up to it. That's why we have the Inuit Nunangat policy, which is key to perfecting that relationship. I use that as an example because it is something we've worked on for a very long time. The proof is still outstanding as to whether it is actually working, but it is something we need to remind ourselves of. Far too often, indigenous groups come to the table having to educate us on our relationship. It should be a no-brainer that we have that relationship, and we should be educating ourselves as to what it is.

I'm not creating a false tension in the question you asked, but I think it can actually enhance the relationships that are nuanced and diverse in nature—not only directly towards indigenous peoples but with the rights holders themselves, to the extent that they hold collective rights and represent them. I think that is varied, and having a group of independent people express that will not only reinforce it. It is also a reminder that we can't simply say that the commission has spoken and we can ignore all the other things that are going on that are used to hold us to account, or at least the relationships that we have.

This is about human dynamics and political dynamics. They're not perfect, but I think this will be an added benefit if we act like the mature responsible government we hold ourselves out to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

I now give the floor to Mr. Deltell for five minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I salute your achievement 38 years ago.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very pleased to be with you today.

My best wishes to you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that whenever I've had dealings with the minister with respect to the indigenous community in my riding, we've always worked well together. I want to thank him publicly for that.

Indeed, I have the privilege to represent the community of Wendake. The Huron-Wendat are established here, on the ancestral lands, and have been living here on a more permanent basis for over 300 years. I had the privilege of representing them for seven years in the Quebec National Assembly, and now I have been representing them for seven years in the House of Commons. I say that with pride because I was born next to Wendake, in Loretteville, which is just a mile from that community. I grew up with the people of Wendake, and I am very proud to represent them. Unfortunately, that representation will end in the next election because of the electoral redistribution. So if I run again and am re‑elected, I will no longer have the privilege of representing them. It breaks my heart. Electoral redistribution isn't done based on the moods of the members, but rather on demographics.

That being said, I would like to commend the minister and come back to what Ms. Gill said earlier about the various governments.

As we know, there is a department in Quebec that deals with first nations affairs. I've forgotten the official name of that department. In any event, I think the minister responsible is well recognized and has done a good job in recent years.

Bill C‑29 calls for the creation of a national council for reconciliation, which will be very important. We want everyone to work together. Of course, no one is against virtue. However, when there is jurisdictional overlap, that's when problems can arise.

In the context of this council that will be created, I would like to know how the minister sees the fit between the federal government, which is the lead on first nations matters, and the provinces, particularly Quebec, which have jurisdiction over the issues.

I would like to know the minister's vision on this.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

That's a very valid question. I would add that we can represent people who are not in our riding. I know you care about the Wendat people. You know very well that you will always have the right to represent them.

In the context of indigenous relations, jurisdiction is a poisonous concept. In fact, the Constitution of Canada was imposed on them, as was the border. So it's a very difficult discussion.

Most of our fights with the provinces, whether it's about language or services for indigenous children, have been to the detriment of indigenous people. So I'm going to be cautious before I make a definitive statement as to what jurisdiction this falls under. In fact, we all have a responsibility to serve indigenous people. We are talking about a fiduciary obligation that is as much the responsibility of the provincial Crown as it is of the federal government, although the federal government has primary responsibility.

I've seen first-hand, during the pandemic, how difficult this issue is. It's associated with relationships that are often broken, whether it's in the context of the numbered treaties or the treaty that Quebec and Canada claim as the first progressive modern treaty, in this case the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

What we're hearing from indigenous communities, in general, is that there is a problem, that we need to sort out the jurisdictional issue, and that we need to work together. Most of the time we haven't done that.

For example, to be able to solve the housing shortage, you need investment from the provinces. British Columbia is doing it, as is Canada, but not all provinces are.

Reforming the child care system will require that children be well served in their own language and that the best interests of the child come first. Unfortunately, this is a conflict we have with Quebec and is currently before the Supreme Court. That being said, other provinces are waiting to benefit, if at all, from the province's victory.

So it's a very thorny issue. I don't have a definitive answer or opinion on the division of powers. This is a word that's fraught with consequences, especially for indigenous people.

I have a good relationship with Ian Lafrenière, the outgoing Quebec minister, but we need to work together. The same is true for all responsible ministers in the other provinces.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You raise some interesting points. However, assuming this leadership is your responsibility.

For our part, we are currently in a consultation process. We have raised a number of issues, including accountability and the issue of appointment. However, in the specific case of federal-provincial-first nations relations, you are the lead.

Here, I’m asking you to decide: what place will you give the provinces in this bill?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

This bill includes but is not limited to the federal government and its responsibility. The national council for reconciliation will have the right to rule on the progress of a particular province. I assume you have Quebec in mind, but it could be Saskatchewan, for example. The council will have every right to do that, and I'm not going to criticize them for that. It's not a jurisdictional issue; it's ultimately a societal project.

The Constitution Act, 1867 and the case law concerning the 24th element specified in its section 91 are quite nebulous. In fact, a case is currently before the court in this regard. This provision has always been interpreted very narrowly by the federal government.

The fact remains that this has been imposed on indigenous people. However, when we talk about reconciliation, we are also talking about joint responsibility for reparation. This obligation to indigenous peoples falls under both levels of government. In terms of that responsibility, we may be the standard-bearer, but legally and morally it's a shared obligation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell.

We'll now complete the second round with Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Battiste, you have five minutes.