Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 31st, 2022

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today. This has been particularly helpful for our committee's work.

I'd like to go back to something Ms. Cloutier mentioned, specifically about her experience with friendship centres and the lived experience of the people who we want to be most impacted by this legislation. For reconciliation to be meaningful, it needs to have a positive impact on communities that are on reserve, off reserve, urban and rural. We need to know if the steps we're taking are making a difference. I'm wondering how we do that.

Do you have any thoughts on how the board can best report on this, especially for, say, remote communities?

[Edith Cloutier]

What we have learned in our work is that it is necessary and important for the National Council for Reconciliation to be broad in scope and focus specifically on reconciliation.

How do we measure success and achievement?

I would say that not having defined this measure too precisely in the bill is also what we want. Indeed, it is important that the National Council for Reconciliation, in its final version, have the power to carry out its own commitments, set its priorities and draw up its action plan to be able to develop organically as an independent organization.

So we need to continue to provide this space for the coming exercises, to stay connected to our reality and to the lives of the people for whom the council will need to matter, and to be able to act.

[Michael DeGagné]

If I might, I'll add a point.

Just as an example, when I started in this particular industry 40 years ago, I would have said, “Wouldn't it be great if we could open every meeting as a corporation, government or non-profit with some acknowledgement that indigenous people were here first for thousands of years?” I would never have pictured 40 years ago that it would become as ubiquitous as it has become. Plenty of people will say that land acknowledgement is not really reconciliation; it's performative, but it's an element of reconciliation. It's a small step that's easily defined and measurable. People can see when it happens and when it doesn't. Now we see it in national broadcasts and at hockey games, meetings and critical events.

I think for those types of things, we can say we had none of this before, it seems to have caught on and it's present now, and we can at least describe the advancements we've made in reconciliation in this regard.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

That's excellent. Thank you very much.

Continuing in that same vein, I'm thinking about non-indigenous people across the country and wanting them to feel the responsibility and wanting them to engage in this process as well.

I know the legislation states that the national council must be two-thirds indigenous and that non-indigenous peoples living in Canada must also participate. What do you envision is the role of non-indigenous people on the board and the perspective they can bring? How can their work advance reconciliation in an indigenous-led institution?

[Michael DeGagné]

Well, it takes two hands to clap. We may define reconciliation in a dozen different ways, but usually it means there's some sort of interaction, relationship or conversation between two groups to try to arrive at some kind of mutual understanding.

The presence of non-indigenous people on this council is absolutely critical. They bring a perspective that is obviously different from an indigenous one. The kinds of people and the affiliations they have when they come to the table can really help advance reconciliation purposefully and meaningfully.

I think the non-indigenous presence is absolutely clear. We've been saying this since the very beginning, and I think Mitch said it again today: Reconciliation is for everyone; it's not just an indigenous issue.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Rosemary Cooper]

Coming from a women's national perspective, I'll add that to make a difference in Canada, you need, as Michael said, both hands. We are all Canadians, and we have to address this reconciliation effort to change the patterns we've seen in Canada.

[Mitch Case]

As Mike said earlier, we've been essentially engaged in a 40-year discussion about reconciliation. In so many ways, nothing about what indigenous people have been calling for in 40 years has changed. We've been saying the exact same things. The things said by someone in a position like I have today are the same things that I heard our leaders say when I was a kid, and before that.

The role for non-indigenous Canadians is not just limited to this council. The reality is that it's not indigenous Canadians who have the electoral power to hold governments accountable and to make sure things actually get done. The numbers just don't work out that indigenous people are going to make or break a government in this country.

In many ways, it's your government, so hold them accountable. That's the message I say to Canadians all the time: It's your government, so hold them accountable. If reconciliation matters to you, make them do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Case.

I want to inform the witnesses and members of the committee that there will be no vote at 1 p.m. So you will not hear the call bell and we can continue the meeting until 1 p.m.

We are starting the third round of questions.

Mr. Melillo, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for the incredible testimony so far, and to my fellow members for their great questions. To that end, much of what I wanted to ask has already been asked, and I appreciate all members for doing that work.

I want to zero in on two topics, and specifically delve into, as in the first round, efforts versus ensuring that we find measurable outcomes.

Mr. DeGagné, we've heard a number of times in committee that there should be more measurable outcomes included in this proposal. I heard your comments earlier about some of the challenges around the specific wording. I'm curious as to whether you can elaborate a bit more on the specific measurable outcomes that you think could potentially be included in Bill C-29 to make it stronger. This would allow us to continue to advance efforts in or ensure reconciliation—whatever terminology you want to use—to make sure we can get it done.

[Michael DeGagné]

This is the age-old discussion in research about quantitative or qualitative research. Quantitative tends to have a certain harder quality. If we can quantify something, we can set a measurable target and we know whether we've reached it or not. We can compare it to other similar circumstances.

However, I think lately, certainly around things like healing, reconciliation or self-determination, we may not be able to measure but we know it when we see it. I think there is a meaningful and impactful way to qualitatively assess what kind of reconciliation we've actually accomplished.

The indigenous community puts a very high value on stories and storytelling. Qualitative assessment lends itself to saying, “Tell me how it went; tell me the story.”

Once started, our organization will have its role to quantify where we can, but also largely to gather and collect stories. That's something the TRC did very well. It's to grab those stories and ensure that we're advancing our cause.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Did anyone else want to comment? Okay.

I have one more question, and if any time is remaining, I'll turn it over to Mr. Vidal because I know he has a lot of questions.

Mr. DeGagné and Mr. Case, you both mentioned the different pieces of reconciliation. I believe “different sectors” were the words you used, Mr. DeGagné. This was in terms of economic reconciliation, land and rights. To the point that was raised earlier—I won't belabour it—we have heard folks mention in the committee that there should be a seat at the table for or a specific focus around economic reconciliation.

To the point that was mentioned about the different sections of reconciliation, do you believe there could potentially be a benefit to having more specific seats, not just for economic reconciliation but for rights as well, and some of those other sectors you mentioned?

I'll open this up to anyone who has a comment.

[Michael DeGagné]

I think the most impactful thing we saw this past summer for reconciliation was the Pope's visit. How would we classify what the Pope managed to accomplish while he was here? Maybe it's spiritual reconciliation or religious reconciliation or something like that.

As many types of reconciliation as you can imagine are there, and we have a sector that supports or represents those different tranches of reconciliation. We're looking here for a general statement that says we understand that we need people who represent all of these different sectors, whether it's spiritual, economic, rights-based or self-determining. I think we have general enough language here to capture it.

I wouldn't want to start to put stickers on individual types of reconciliation because I think we may not have enough seats at the table.

[Mitch Case]

Yes, that's my concern also. If we into that representation issue for all of those different issues, now we're talking about a national council of about 147 people. I think we start to run into problems if that's the way we're going.

That's where the council gets into defining reconciliation. There's the board, and they can establish whatever advisory tables they want. They can bring in all the different voices they need to. I would imagine that this makes sense. You can have a panel of experts who advise on where we are with—to Ms. Idlout's question—a rights-based reconciliation agreement, with social determinants of health in reconciliation, with GBA+ in reconciliation or with economic reconciliation.

Each of you represents all kinds of diverse interests in your constituencies. We don't have to have 18 members from Kenora because we have you, Mr. Melillo. Multiple perspectives can be represented by different individuals at that table. There can be ways for more information and more voices to be brought into that process without either putting labels on things or having a massive board that would be ungovernable.

[Rosemary Cooper]

I'd just like to supplement that point.

For example, with missing and murdered indigenous women, the inquiry found that the data or the statistics weren't there. Where are the other institutions—federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous rights holders—that are monitoring that data? There are existing institutions that can provide that raw data for us as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Melillo.

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

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our presenters today. It's a very interesting discussion and a very important one.

I attended residential school. My whole family attended residential school. My wife's family attended residential school too. I got involved in politics at a very young age because I could see the poverty. I could see the struggles our people were facing. A lot of our elders always spoke about the agreements that were in place through the treaties and through the Métis scrip so we could coexist. I think they're the reasons I stayed in politics, because for the longest time it seemed like nobody was listening.

I want to ask the committee a question about the council and how the elders and survivors fit into the council. When the transitional committee was doing their work, did they envision that there would be seats set aside for elders and survivors, or did they see a separate body set up for the elders to advise and support the NCR?

[Michael DeGagné]

From up in Sioux Lookout, a good friend of mine, Garnet Angeconeb, always tells me, “Don't forget the voices of survivors.” You got into politics because, as you said, nobody was listening to those voices anymore.

I think any council like this has an ongoing obligation to listen to survivors. Whether they're survivors of residential schools, the sixties scoop or the child welfare system, we have that obligation because their voices will be critical in reconciliation.

I think what we see in other organizations.... For example, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation has gone the route of establishing an elders' council. Certainly a lot of universities have. I don't know if you want to tie the hands of whatever board comes in, but I think any board that moves forward with this organization will be thinking about the voices of survivors and making sure that they're captured meaningfully and in an ongoing way in the work of this council.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'm not sure if you answered my question, but I have other questions regarding the body and makeup of this council, and providing oversight.

I've been looking at UNDRIP for a long time, and I always expected there to be an oversight body, a watchdog, because indigenous people don't trust governments. I'm not sure if that would be a separate body or if it would fall under the responsibility of this council, but it seems that a lot of oversight needs to happen. There are truth and reconciliation recommendations, possibly UNDRIP, the sixties scoop and murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. That's a lot of oversight to be responsible for, and if there are nine, 10, 12 or 14 members—whatever the number—it's going to mean a lot of research, it's going to mean a lot discussions and it's going to mean a lot of updates. That's going to be overwhelming for one body to look at, and I'm not sure if the board is big enough or what the structure will end up looking like.

What is the team? How many staff will be there to provide support? I'm sure you guys have looked at something like that. Are you able to tell me? Just give me a general picture of how that would work.

[Michael DeGagné]

I'll start. I wouldn't expect that an organization like this, as tempting as it is, would take on all of the oversight of UNDRIP, the sixties scoop, child welfare reform and all of those things. Certainly the sixties scoop has its own organization. I know day students are setting up their own.

There should be organizations with some advisory or governance relationship with every one of these issues, especially UNDRIP. I think this is an organization that will focus on reconciliation in all its forms, economic and otherwise, so I don't think you'd need all sorts of staff. You'd be focusing on one particular issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

Now it's Ms. Gill's turn, for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask a question regarding clause 13, which deals with the knowledge and experience of directors. It says that each of them “must have knowledge and experience with respect to matters related ...."

Is it also left to the directors to define what is meant by “with respect to matters related”? I understand that the council is not yet formed, but we can see that there is still a vagueness in clause 13.

Could one of the four witnesses provide an answer?

[Edith Cloutier]

In fact, the process of calling for nominations does just that, opening up to a wide range of complementary skills and expertise on a board with a mandate like the National Council for Reconciliation.

I think it is also a form of good governance to gather a diversity of views, expertise, skills, and knowledge. As we have seen, the council will have to put the people themselves at the heart of its approach. So I think it is very healthy in terms of good governance to be able to ensure that.

It is proposed that we go out and seek nominations to build a board of directors that can carry this mandate.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Cloutier. You are answering my question. On the other hand, I don't know if there are things that could have been added, because you went further.

If I understood correctly, this is the idea behind the clause concerned: you talked about diversity, knowledge and experience, both in governance and in indigenous concerns. We want allies on the council and you are signalling to me that I have understood correctly.

I have another question, which is really—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Unfortunately, your time is up.