Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2022

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I thank the witness for his testimony, but I'd like to bring things back to Bill C-29.

What we're talking about here is not the political definition of “reconciliation”, but the definition and blueprint for reconciliation decided by the Indian residential school survivors and their descendants or children. Within that are the 94 calls to action. They've asked our government to implement the TRC calls to action. What Bill C-29 means to do is ensure there is some independent accountability to ensure that the government moves forward on those calls to action.

Mr. Ross, I'm wondering if you could tell us whether you believe we should be listening to the Indian residential school survivors, whose feedback went into these 94 calls to action. Do you think these are worth moving forward on, and do you think we should be fulfilling the TRC calls to action?

[Ellis Ross]

That's without a doubt. My parents both went to residential school, but they weren't taken; they were sent by their parents. My mother was sent to learn how to look after a household. My dad was sent because his mother died and there was no one else to look after him. They would not tell me about any of the abuse they faced.

I've done this job now for 18 years, and there's a wide spectrum of things that happen to first nations. It wasn't just residential school. There was the idea that first nations couldn't even get legal representation. There was this racist attitude at the time that we were no better than animals in the field. There's a lot to make up for.

In today's context, you can't ignore the fact that a lot of our people are still living on the streets. I don't think reconciliation benefits the person who went to prison at the age of 16 in Oakalla. I don't think he's willing to have a conversation about any type of bill that doesn't speak to how he's living or wants to live.

I put out a pamphlet when I first heard about the idea of reconciliation being used for political purposes. I tried to educate everybody, including my own people, about everything that happened and the general nature—not only my band but bands all across Canada. I tried to tell them why we have to do better for today's generation and the next generation.

Yes, it's definitely important to talk about residential schools in truth and reconciliation. However, in my mind, if it doesn't translate into actually making futures better for aboriginals and in turn making a country stronger, I don't see the point.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Ross, I appreciate that point of view. To your parents who went to the Indian residential schools, I'm sorry. My aunt and uncle also went. As a Mi’kmaq from Eskasoni who has lived on reserve, I know there are a lot of things we need to do better as a government.

You brought up the justice part. There are key clauses within the calls to justice that talk about reforming the justice system. Making sure we have less incarceration of indigenous people and creating alternatives are part of the calls to action.

Do you believe it's important to listen to the things people have told us—the survivors and intergenerational people who ended up in prison—and move forward, in a fast and independent way, to ensure these calls to action are addressed?

[Ellis Ross]

That's without a doubt.

I'll be a bit prejudiced here. Violent criminal activities that hurt other people, including aboriginals, can't be put in that light. They can't be.

I'm taking my experience as chief counsellor. When we had our public meetings, they asked for more police presence in our community—which we couldn't get, by the way. We were fighting to have more RCMP, especially on weekends. The activities in my community ranged from peeping Toms to speeding, but my community drew the line when other people got hurt. That included domestic violence.

I think we have to be really careful here. I don't think violence actually knows any race. When you hurt somebody, especially if it's fatal, the laws of Canada and B.C. have to prevail.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I want to be clear on this. You're in support of our government moving forward to advance the 94 calls to action that the survivors and chairs put forward in the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. Is that correct?

[Ellis Ross]

That's without a doubt. However, I would add a caution in terms of the case law principles, and there are a lot of them. There were two things the judge said. He said we have to reconcile these incidences because—let's face it—none of us are going anywhere. The other thing he said was that the government has a duty to address these issues, but the government also has a duty to the greater society.

The only thing I'll add is that the greater society now includes aboriginals, because 50% of aboriginals live off reserve. They have become members of the larger population that wants to see a stronger country, regardless of any other opinions out there.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Do you think it's also important to have an independent committee that has oversight to keep the government accountable for the TRC calls to action?

[Ellis Ross]

That's up to the politicians, but it has to be based on the experiences of other independent committees, which might not work so well.

I'm an MLA in B.C. and I know that the independent watchdogs set up to keep an eye on the government don't do such a good job. If it is going to be set up, the principles and the lines of authority have to be strong. Otherwise, the government will just ignore it

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You have about 10 seconds, Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I figured that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

We will probably have a second round.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Ross for his testimony.

Mr. Ross, you talked about a number of things in your opening remarks, and I was intrigued by two terms. We're discussing Bill C‑29, of course, but you she went upstream of that when you talked about the concept of reconciliation being used for political purposes, for example, and the fact that the very concept of reconciliation is being overused or not accurately defined.

On the one hand, how would you define the word “reconciliation” and on the other, what are the implications of reconciliation in concrete terms?

Could you also clarify what you meant when you said that the concept was used for political purposes?

[Ellis Ross]

I first heard the word “reconciliation” when I read the case law, the Haida court case in 2004, when the judgment came down. It described the government's duty to address infringements on rights and title. The judge who used it said that we had to start addressing these because, let's face it, no one was going anywhere and we also had a duty to the greater society to make this work.

Originally I didn't agree, because I thought the priority for government should be to address this, but as I learned later on, I couldn't draw a line between first nations and non-first nations. I couldn't do it, especially since I enjoyed having hospitals, schools and roads and I had non-first nations in my family. I have non-first nations in my community. There is no way that I would single them out and say that they're different just because of reconciliation.

Over the last 10 or 15 years, no matter what the issue has been regarding first nations, I have always seen the word “reconciliation” pop up, and there was a whole spectrum of reasons it was used. Nobody actually brought the definition of “reconciliation” back to the case law where it started. There is no starting point, in my opinion, to the definition of “reconciliation”. Everybody has a different definition, and if there's a specific objective they want, then it seems convenient to bring up that word or it seems convenient to talk about some type of process, but if you don't have a starting point or if you don't have a clear definition of what a process is or what a word is or what it's meant to mean, you're going to have a tough time trying to achieve your objectives.

We didn't even talk about reconciliation back in our community. All we knew was that everything we had in place up until that date—the programs, the government funding, the suicide hotlines—all failed, every single thing. It wasn't until we walked away from the government funding, all of the government programs and all the hotlines and we focused entirely on economic development that we realized that yes, inadvertently we've actually solved all of our social issues.

I know you're talking about Bill C-29 in a specific manner, but on reconciliation itself, I still believe that if we're not addressing the social ills that plagued first nations, then it's just going to be another committee, and it will be open to interpretation by no matter who is in government to actually use that unless you have clear objectives.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

It's like the premise is flawed, if I understood you correctly.

I'd like to ask another question that's also related to what we're discussing today.

In your opinion, the findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada are becoming flawed, as I understand it.

In that case, should the calls to action also be questioned?

I would venture to guess that the council itself, which is downstream of all this, would be irrelevant to you. I'm sorry for using those words, but I'm trying to understand your position on the commission, the calls to action and the council we're discussing today.

[Ellis Ross]

I don't actually know the details of what you're talking about. I do know you're talking about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission findings and whatnot. When that first came out, I was part of the chief and council of Haisla and I didn't read that fully, because I was living the issues that I just talked about. I live on reserve. I still live on reserve today. When you're talking about violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, unemployment and poverty and you live those and you want to change those, then these reports don't mean much.

I don't know anybody in my circle who has read that report. In fact, I think today I'm still the only first nation member of my community who has read the Indian Act. I didn't understand it. I think I'm still one of only two people who have read as much on case law principles as possible to try to define rights and title, because I was just trying to find a way to address social ills. This is part of the frustration I have in terms of these kinds of talks going on all across Canada: Nobody talks about what we're trying to achieve.

It just seems like a high-level discussion on how to make us feel good about something when first nations people are still committing suicide. They are getting hooked on fentanyl and crystal meth. They're on the streets. There is no real authority to address all the people who are living off reserve in our urban centres.

Now, with the ability that my band has and their own choice, we say that we will help anybody on our band list, no matter where they live in the world. We're going to help them with drug addiction issues. We're going to help them with bus passes. We're going to help them with recreation. We're going to help them with travel, and—guess what—Ottawa can't say anything about it, because this is all our own money. It's not mandated by Indian Act funding agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

We will now go to Ms. Idlout for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairman.

I am hearing something very different from what I have heard before. My fellow indigenous people have been advised that we were forced to speak English and not allowed to use our own language. Now there have been certain committees appointed to try to work out these issues.

First, I want to ask you, with regard to Bill C-29, how you understand it.

[English]

[Ellis Ross]

I understand that the committee is considering an act to either define or actually implement reconciliation measures for Canada. That's what I was invited to talk about—my opinion on the word “reconciliation”.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Okay.

I will now read to you paragraph 7(d) of Bill C-29, which states:

monitor policies and programs of the Government of Canada, and federal laws, that affect Indigenous peoples;

What is your opinion on that?

[English]

[Ellis Ross]

That is quite the task, because at a minimum there are five different funding agreements that first nations can participate in, and they're based on financial competency.

We have a long way to go before first nations can become independent. To be frank, when I took on this political role to take my people out of poverty, I actually segregated Indian Act funding in my community. I took all the Indian Act programs and I got rid of most of them—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop you there for a moment.

[English]

[Ellis Ross]

—and I made it a staff issue, and I actually made it so the staff was accountable to government to make sure that funding agreements were in place.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I'm sorry, but I want to stop you right there. I want to ask you another question.

[English]

[Ellis Ross]

I then made a separate new council to deal with politics, economic development, and rights and title. It worked wonderfully.