Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Please say a few more words so that the interpreters can check.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

These are my personal headphones, and I will hopefully be able to complete my short presentation with the committee with these headphones. I'm hoping that everyone can hear me.

As I said earlier, I have to leave shortly after my presentation as I'm in 'Namgis, or Alert Bay, B.C., meeting with the chief and council shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Can the interpreters hear Chief Archibald?

[The Clerk]

Yes, they said it's a little bit improved, so they'll try again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Okay, go ahead, Chief Archibald. Perhaps speak a bit more slowly than you normally do, and I'll book extra time.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

Do you want me to start over, Mr. Chair, with my recommendations? That's the end of my presentation, really. The interpreters can get the recommendations that the AFN has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Yes, please.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

In terms of the recommendations from the AFN, we feel it's inappropriate for the federal government to grant itself the discretion to appoint the majority of the board of directors responsible for providing this independent oversight of its own actions. This is not within the spirit and intent of reconciliation, and it's very paternalistic.

The AFN proposes that clause 10 be amended to provide for the following nominations of the first board of directions: Assembly of First Nations, three nominees; ITK, two nominees; MNC, two nominees; and the remaining two to five nominees to be nominated and appointed by the minister in collaboration with the transition committee. This proposal ensures that the majority of nominations to the first board of directors will remain with the AFN, ITK and MNC, and not the federal government.

The second part of the recommendation is an actual amendment we're suggesting. The second recommendation is around clause 12, which deals with representativeness. It says that the board of directors “must, to the extent possible”, include first nation, Métis, Inuit, and other peoples in Canada. What we're saying as the AFN is that it is of the utmost importance that the NCR board of directors include first nation representation. It should not be “to the extent possible”, but that there must be first nation representatives on the board of directors.

I will wrap it up there—oh, sorry. There is an actual proposed amendment: The AFN proposes that clause 12 be amended to provide that the council's board shall include representation from first nations.

The third portion is not an amendment. It is around funding. Bill C-29 actually includes no provisions with respect to funding or operational budgets; it simply states that the NCR must fulfill financial reporting requirements. Again, we have a proposed amendment under funding. In order for the NCR to be truly independent and adequately resourced, the AFN recommends that Bill C-29 be amended to include guaranteed funding provisions to ensure that the important work of the NCR be sustained into the future.

I want to thank you, despite some of our technical problems. We will submit the full speech that I have prepared in writing.

I want to say meegwetch, thank you; ninanâskomon, which in my language means, “I'm grateful, I'm thankful, I thank you”; and kisâkihitin, which means, “I love you”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, National Chief Archibald.

We'll go to our second witness, President Natan Obed.

President Obed, you have five minutes.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see everyone here in person.

We are pleased to offer our views on Bill C-29 and the creation of a national council on reconciliation.

The work of the truth and reconciliation commission, the national inquiry on murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and many other initiatives have been foundational to identifying and describing the widespread trauma inflicted upon indigenous peoples during the colonial era and its connection to the current situation of indigenous peoples.

While Inuit Nunangat, our homeland, comprises over 40% of Canada's land mass and 72% of Canada's coastline, it is remote and often removed from the consideration of policy-makers, government officials and most Canadians. We appreciate the broad scope of the act and provisions designed to address reconciliation measures.

In some cases, Inuit have shared experiences with other indigenous peoples, yet in many cases, the impacts of colonization have affected Inuit in a distinct fashion. We have worked with the Government of Canada for a distinctions-based approach to reconciliation for justice but also for the work moving forward with the Government of Canada. Some examples of this—and many of these initiatives have flowed through the Inuit-Crown partnership committee—are things such as ensuring Inuit inclusion for those who are excluded in the Indian residential schools settlement agreement, further and greater federal recognition of and actions with respect to the Qikiqtani truth commission, securing recognition and an apology for the Ahiarmiut relocation in central Nunavut, and completing long-standing work on the Nanilavut initiative for families to identify the graves of loved ones who had been taken south for treatment in sanatoriums for tuberculosis. If they did pass away, their families and loved ones weren't notified and were not told the place where they had been buried.

A challenge with many pan-indigenous exercises is that the specific impacts of colonization of Inuit and the specific means of moving forward could be lost. We note that the proposed body is mainly focused on reporting and awareness raising. It would not be in a position to provide meaningful redress for the ongoing impacts of colonization. This is the reason ITK has proposed an indigenous peoples human rights tribunal through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the implementation of that act to ensure that government accountability is clearly catalogued for recourse and remedy for all those situations in which Inuit human rights have not been upheld or have been violated.

This particular piece of legislation aims to do something completely different, and therefore there are many different pieces that are needed. Tribunals, boards, or bodies need to be created during this time to ensure that we implement not only the calls to action from the TRC and the calls for justice for the MMIWG inquiry but also implement the legislation on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

For these reasons, ITK often advocates the inclusion of Inuit representatives within and on federal bodies that have an impact on Inuit rights, and, further, that Inuit should be able to determine Inuit representation.

We do not have specific amendments for you today. We are still in the process of understanding this legislation and talking it through with our board of directors, but the principles raised by National Chief Archibald are very similar to the ones that I believe we would be making to ensure that the council is composed of representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis and that these appointment processes will be very different under this proposed legislation because it is the creation of a not-for-profit society versus a governmental agency.

I look forward to further conversations with you all on this particular bill in the time that has been allotted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, President Obed.

We will now go to President Cassidy Caron of the Métis National Council for five minutes.

[Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council]

Thank you.

Tansi, everyone.

My name is Cassidy Caron. I sit before you today as the president of the Métis National Council, which has been the recognized national and international representative of the Métis nation in Canada since 1983.

The Métis National Council, for those of you who may not know, is composed of, and receives its mandate from, the democratically elected leadership within provincial Métis governments currently within the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

In 2017, the Government of Canada and Métis governments entered into the Canada‒Métis Nation Accord. Among its objectives, the accord seeks to advance reconciliation of the rights, claims, interests and aspirations of the Métis nation. Four of five Métis governments recognized as signatories to this accord are the governments that currently compose the Métis National Council.

Our Métis governments, through their registries and democratically elected governance structures at the local, regional and provincial levels, are mandated and authorized to represent Métis nation citizens within their respective jurisdictions, including in dealing with collectively held Métis rights, interests and outstanding claims against the Crown.

Since 1983, the Métis National Council's priority has always been to advance the distinct Métis voice at the national and international levels, and we will continue to advance issues of collective importance and serve the Métis nation as our original founders intended.

I want to begin this morning by extending my gratitude for the work that has been done by the transitional committee to date in developing this legislation and to the interim board that sat in 2017 and 2018 to provide guidance to this transitional committee, and to all those who participated in and contributed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where this idea of a national council for truth and reconciliation was first articulated as an accountability mechanism. A significant amount of work by a significant number of individuals who have dedicated their time and effort has brought us to this point today. Their efforts must be recognized.

While a significant amount of time has passed since the release of the recommendation to establish the national council, we would rather not dwell on the time that has passed but rather focus our attention now towards the significant amount of work that lies ahead on our journeys toward reconciliation. Fulfilling TRC call to action 53 will be a significant step in the right direction on our collective journey forward in this country, and Bill C-29 is an important piece of legislation that can serve to support our ongoing and continued efforts on the journey of reconciliation.

While Bill C-29 will support this through the creation of this independent, non-political, permanent and indigenous-led organization, we believe that in some circumstances the legislation does not go quite far enough to provide for the federal government to truly lay the foundation to also address call to action 55, which is a piece that is critical to setting this national council up for success and ensuring that progress is made. Call to action 55 calls on the Government of Canada to provide key information to the council to support its mandate, including reports or data requested by the national council.

As it's currently written, the legislation fails to provide for mechanisms or enablers, such as a subpoena power, to ensure that this government or subsequent governments into the future cannot shield or refuse to provide full access to reports or data required to meet its mandate. It is important to ask how this council will successfully monitor the state of reconciliation without legislated powers to access this critical data.

I will note, however, that a key role and function of the Métis National Council through its dedicated seat on this council will be to support the implementation of call to action 55, thereby contributing to the success of the National Council for TRC.

As we move down a pathway toward data sovereignty, the Métis National Council aims to support our Métis governments in the areas of information governance and management, and it is working toward being able to collect, analyze, evaluate and govern Métis nation data, including data that will be able to contribute to reports on the progress toward reconciliation.

Furthermore, the purpose and function of the council, as set out in the proposed legislation, are in line with the Métis National Council's understanding of how we, collectively, will continue to advance reconciliation efforts. The research and reports that will be produced by the national council can also provide a very important opportunity to highlight the positive work taking place within our communities as it relates to reconciliation.

I will end by once again thanking the individuals who have contributed to the development of this legislation. As the recognized national Métis voice, I applaud the particular attention in the legislation to ensuring that indigenous voices will be a majority on this council, as well as the protection of the three national indigenous organizations' ability to appoint board members.

It's our hope that the end result of this legislation will be the formation of a national council board that can apply a distinctions-based approach and fulfill its mandate to the best of its ability for all indigenous peoples.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, President Caron.

We will now go to questions, beginning with the Conservatives. For the first round, every one of the four speakers will have six minutes.

Mr. Vidal, you may begin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today and providing your contribution to the discussion around this important bill.

I was going to talk about the independence aspect, but you've all indicated some of your opinions towards that already, so I'm going to move on to a different discussion item.

Back in 2018, when the interim board released its 20 recommendations, which included much of the framework for what we're dealing with today, there were a number of recommendations in there. They became part of what is the “Purpose and Functions” section of Bill C-29 today.

What has been added in the legislation that wasn't in those original recommendations is this concept around advancing efforts or “including efforts”. The original recommendations talked about actually advancing reconciliation.

I guess my frustration, a little bit, is how we measure advancing efforts relative to actually moving down the road towards reconciliation. Is advancing efforts good enough in the opinion of your organizations?

That question can be for all of you. I didn't direct it to any individual, so go ahead and each have a shot at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Let's start with the AFN and then go to the ITK and the MNC.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, efforts are efforts and results are results. When it comes to reconciliation, I think where we're lacking in Canada is the sense of the truth of that truth and reconciliation report. The truth of what happened in this country is still not widely known and it's not widely taught.

The other part of it is that once we get to the truth, we can start to talk about reconciliation and have acts of reconciliation. One thing that's missing from this TRC process, in my view, is the reparations that are needed when it comes to reconciliation.

The reparations include things like giving back to first nations the land that was inappropriately taken away or taken from them by nefarious means. All of those lands have to be returned to first nations.

The road to reconciliation.... I would say if we were on a chapter of a book on reconciliation, today we are on the first sentence of that book.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

Go ahead, President Obed.

[Natan Obed]

Thank you for the question.

Legislative drafting is an art that I have not quite yet understood, but in working for decades now on Inuit land claims issues, I certainly understand the concept of fear-based language that allows for government to do less rather than more. This type of wording, where instead of doing an action you “attempt” to do an action, is built into a lot of the different pieces of legislation or programs and policies that we see. Ultimately, it frustrates us when it comes to implementation sometimes, because the spirit and intent often then changes drastically when these new types of words are introduced.

I don't have an official position from ITK on it, but I certainly understand that the introduction of these types of words is often done to the detriment of the implementation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

Go ahead, President Caron.

[Cassidy Caron]

Thank you.

I too don't know the intricacies of developing legislation and the language that goes into it, but I do know that language holds a lot of power, and it does need to be critically analyzed.

In one sense, it's important to know that reconciliation isn't just one thing that gets done; there are multiple initiatives, actions and steps that need to be taken to advance reconciliation. In that case, if the word “efforts” is interpreted in that sense, then I understand it, but if there is chance for misinterpretation, it does need to be cleared up.

For the Métis nation specifically, moving toward reconciliation does include a number of significant actions, steps and changes that need to be made. We do have some reports that lay out indicators to measure those efforts in those situations.

It's a great question. If we can get clarity around the specific word or a specific interpretation for “efforts”, it would only strengthen the legislation.

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

I have very little time left. I'm going to ask a really quick question.

There's been some criticism by Dr. Littlechild, for example, about the bill not actually being co-drafted with indigenous people. The claim by the minister last week was that it is. Dr. Littlechild is saying that maybe it isn't.

From your perspective—and you've been involved in this process from the beginning—is the criticism accurate that the legislation has not been co-drafted, or would you side with the minister and say that it really was in consultation and conjunction with the input from indigenous people?

Again, that's for all three of you, quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You'll have to do this very quickly, starting with Chief Archibald.

[National Chief RoseAnne Archibald]

No. There was no co-drafting, and it would have been in that transition committee of which Dr. Wilton Littlechild was a member. If he's saying there was no co-drafting, then there definitely was no co-drafting.

[Natan Obed]

We had conversations with the department. We certainly did not appoint the Inuk who represented Inuit on this particular transition committee. Codevelopment is something we are trying to create parameters and frameworks around with the Government of Canada, but we have not to date done so. Codevelopment is a term that we just don't ascribe to at the moment in any of the legislation in the past seven years, or that is on the table now, but we do hope to get there.

[Cassidy Caron]

We too are in the process of developing principles for codevelopment with Canada so that we can better determine whether or not these things have been actually formally codeveloped. I can't say that I've been involved in the process from the beginning, because I was only elected one year ago.