Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 27th, 2022

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

I'm a big supporter of co-development, first of all, as I am with co-drafting of legislation. It's my understanding that so far this has not been co-drafted so that's already a missed opportunity.

I think if you want to have a protocol that serves everyone, then it needs to be co-considered from the conceptual stages onward.

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

Thank you.

You also commented on clause 8 on the initial appointment of the first board of directors. Again, the language has been softened from what you talked about in the original calls to action and recommendations even of the interim board that were made back in 2018, where again it's the ministerin this clause “in collaboration with”, but your language says it should be jointly done when we appoint the first board of directors.

I'm assuming from what you said that you would support an amendment to switch that back to “jointly appointed” for the board of directors.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

That is my view, but I will just say that in our call to action we do use the word “collaboration” in the call to action. We use both words, but we talk specifically about jointly when it comes to the composition.

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

Thank you.

It's my opinion that done jointly is a little stronger language and I would like to see that.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

One is more about the spirit of it, and the other is the operational practicality of it. That's how I see it.

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

Right, that's fair.

I'm coming a little bit more back to call to action number 55. There is a number of really measurable items in call to action 55 by which we could measure progress. There are things that are very quantifiable, and we don't find those actually in the legislation in the purpose and function section.

I'm curious. You said we don't want to shame anyone but we want to monitor and measure progress effectively. There is the old saying that what gets measured gets done. I wonder if you would support the concept of ensuring that the specific items in call to action 55 are included but I would like to also suggest maybe it be not just limited to those, that there would be other measurable items that could help us really successfully measure our journey toward reconciliation.

Would you agree with that?

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Yes, I do agree, and we actually do say that these are not meant to be exhaustive lists.

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

Exactly.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

They're examples and they may not be the ones, frankly, that prove to be relevant in every region of the country. Over time we may see that in certain areas drilling down in a certain area is more important than somewhere else.

It's an iterative thing, but it's not meant to be exhaustive, and it's not meant to assume that it's going to be perfect out of the gate either.

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

I perfectly agree with you. I just think it's really important that we have some quantifiable things. There are some examples of very quantifiable things, so thank you for that.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Yes. It's not intended to say, “Gee, I wonder what we should measure.” I mean, we've given some very particular things where we know we're in big trouble, so let's start there.

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

Exactly. Thank you.

I have a last question before I run out of time. I'm going to frame this very quickly.

Dr. Wilton Littlechild, who was a member of both the interim board and the transitional committee, expressed some frustration around the term “efforts for” in the legislation. I think the sense is that it's kind of fluffy or soft. We find in the legislation, even though it was not in the interim board's draft legislation, the term “efforts for” six times.

I'm curious to know whether you would support the amendments that would suggest maybe we should take out the words “efforts for”, and in the context it would change is to say that we're actually talking about advancing reconciliation rather than just making efforts for. It kind of comes back to that measurable progress as well, I guess. Would you support that concept of maybe removing some of those terms, such as “efforts for”?

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Yes. I did specifically say that today. I will make my written copy available, but I did say that somewhere in here.

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

You talked about it in the “purpose” section, but it's also in other places in the bill a number of times. I want it to be the broader thing as well. That's why I asked.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Yes. It's repeated elsewhere. I had five minutes, so I couldn't go into it.

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

Fair enough. I would appreciate your sending your written comments. That would be great. Thank you.

I think I'm out of time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You're right, Mr. Vidal. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. McLeod for six minutes.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the presenters today. Those were very interesting presentations. It's too bad we don't have more time for everybody to really talk about everything they've put together.

Mr. Chair, I'm assuming that we have confirmation that everybody will be providing their speaking notes to us for review.

I have a question for Marie Wilson, who's from the Northwest Territories. It's good to see that we have representation from the north here. It's not something we always get with our witnesses.

I'm really glad you talked about this whole issue being a Canadian issue versus an indigenous issue. It's so important, I think, to have a non-political oversight body. This may be one body. We may need more. We may need another body—for UNDRIP, for example. This is something that is important. The makeup of the directors on it is also important. We heard some comments to that effect today.

I think you know very clearly that the north was really affected. Out of the 139 recognized residential schools, 32 were in the north, in the Northwest Territories or Yukon or Nunavut. On a per capita basis, the impact was significantly higher in our region. Given this, and given the level of the discussion on how directors should be selected or who should be a director and the number of people who are talking about wanting seats as directors from the national indigenous organizations, I want to ask you if you could speak to the importance of having voices from the territorial north appropriately included in the board and the work of the national council for reconciliation.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod, for the question.

I think it's a hugely important question, the makeup, and I commented on the issue of “indigenous-led” because I think it easily slides into something being a formulaic answer rather than a really well-thought-out answer.

The reason I questioned the use of that term.... I know it's a term that's almost automatically used without a shared sense of what it actually does mean. What does it mean? Does it mean numbers of people? Does it mean world view? Does it mean lived experiences? Does it mean per capita impact, as you've just suggested? Does it mean residential school survivors? Does it mean awareness of the history and the current critical needs, and representation being based on that? Does it mean commitment to shared principles of reconciliation?

Selecting a powerful council doesn't necessarily define around indigenous or non-indigenous or first nations or Inuit or anything in a quantifiable quota way, but rather to those issues of where we know there's a real need and representation. We know that whenever we go on a per capita basis on any national committees, the north is always under-represented. That's why you're able to make the comment you just made about having the north here. If you go on a per capita basis by population, the north will always be under-represented. If you go on criteria that talk about per capita impact of residential schools and the legacy, you'd have the highest single representation because of having the longest-running schools over a multi-generational time frame.

I think the question first of all is about how big a committee has to be to be functional, but it's also about how it structures itself so that you have a proper and informed voice and the proper matrix of skills you will need to be an effective national council. I think those are really critical issues.

If you're asking if I have a specific formula around that, no, I do not, but I think a vague one like that leaves itself open to just the usual political response of “one from here and one from here”—you know, like that. It doesn't always add up to the powerful mix you need.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you for that.

I wanted to talk a little more about the composition and the work of the board of the national council for reconciliation and how important you think it is for the survivors of the residential school system to be included and involved. I heard it mentioned by another presenter here today, but I wanted to hear what you thought about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Doctor, you have 45 seconds for your reply, please.

[Dr. Marie Wilson]

Okay.

I'll just say, first of all, to be very clear, that I have not been involved either at the level of the interim board or the transition team, so I don't know what thinking has already gone into that.

I do know that the national council, as we talked about at the level of the commission, needs to have some very particular skills. I do think that it needs to have, as our TRC did, survivors at the heart of its purpose. That can be as committee members or it can be as a parallel circle, an advisory circle. That's another way to do it. It's a different formula. It's so the heart and purpose of survivors—and intergenerational survivors, as was mentioned by one of the other intervenors—is ensured and assured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod and Dr. Wilson.

Mrs. Gill, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses.

Thank you, Ms. Wilson and Mr. Nungak.

[Member spoke in Innu as follows:]

Tshinashkumitinau, Innushkueu Tshernish mak innu-utshimau Pietacho.

[Innu text translated as follows:]

Thank you, Ms. Tshernish and Chief Pietacho.

[Translation]

Thank you for your testimony. I would like to hear from both of you. I have only six minutes, and you have seen how short that is, so I would like to leave room for you.

I don't know whether you consulted each other, but you talked about some similar things, in particular representativeness. You both talked about elders. When we look at the composition of the board of directors, in section 12 of Bill C‑29, it says that it must include "youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons", but it does not mention either survivors, whom Ms. Wilson spoke about, or elders. Having been in contact with the Innu nation, I think I know, and you will tell me if I am mistaken, how important elders are. I would like to know your views on that.

In addition, you also spoke about language. My colleagues may say that it is not surprising for a member from Quebec to talk about language, but it surprised me that you both raised that issue in your testimony. You said that because the first language of the Innu nation was Innu and French is its second language, that kept you away from the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and at the same time from information. I think that is what you meant.

Next, I would also like to talk about women. You spoke about women, so if you would like to complete your remarks, I will give you the remaining time. If that is not sufficient, of course, but you can always send us notes. It will be our duty and our pleasure to read them, to inform our work.

Innushkueu Tshernish, I would invite you to answer first, if you wish. Then, utshimau Piétacho, you can follow.

[Marjolaine Tshernish]

Kuei, kuei. Thank you, tshinashkumitin, Mrs. Gill.

It talks about representation from a region in the composition of the board of directors and it compares regions in terms of the abuse that one or another of them suffered or in terms of which of them had the most residential schools in its territory. That is part of history. As members of the First Nations, we have all experienced it. I have never heard a community or a nation use this representativeness when it speaks, because that history was experienced by everyone in the First Nations in Canada. I say that because I was struck by the remarks made by one of the members earlier.

I am going to tell you something that is important to me. You may not know it, but some residential school survivors define themselves as survivors, while others prefer to define themselves as former residential school students. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission enabled those survivors or former students to speak, to disclose what was deepest within them. It was difficult, because it brought wounds to the surface.

It is important that this sensitivity and this reality be part of the discussions around the table. In my region, I observe that there has not yet been a dialogue between the former residential school students and their child or children. I am myself the child of a former student, and I have not yet had the opportunity to have a conversation with my mother about the residential school.