Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

On December 2, 2022, Natan Obed, the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national Inuit organization, which does represent Inuit in all regions of Canada, stated in an interview with Nunatsiaq News that the bill was not co-developed and, as such, is not endorsed by Inuit beneficiary organizations across Inuit Nunangat.

During a press conference on Parliament Hill, President Obed clearly stated that:

The processes that the Government of Canada has used to come to the space where they had the first iteration of the bill were not co-developed with Inuit.

Colleagues, this is an important statement that concerns me that we need to look closer at. Whenever we hear it said in relation to government legislation, and I would say especially legislation which affects Indigenous peoples, we need to pay attention to the alarms that it raises. The Inuit-Crown Co‑development Principles were released by the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, or ICPC, one of three permanent bilateral mechanisms created by the Government of Canada to facilitate government-to-government relationships between the federal government and representatives of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

These permanent bilateral mechanisms, or PBMs — yet another acronym — as they are commonly referred to, are meant to tackle the unique priorities of Canada’s different groups of Indigenous peoples. First Nation priorities will not necessarily be the same as Inuit priorities, and the same can be said of Métis priorities.

The actions that result from the various PBMs are meant to be significant steps in furthering Canada’s reconciliation agenda, as they are driven by Indigenous peoples and are undertaken with a whole-of-government approach. So I think it is significant that these co-development principles, which were released in November of 2022 after months of negotiation around the Inuit-Crown Partnership table, bore the logos of ITK, the various regional Inuit beneficiary organizations and the Government of Canada. It showed the commitment that all the represented parties were making to move forward on legislative policy and other efforts related to Inuit in a truly collaborative manner.

The document opens with this paragraph:

The Co-Development Principles outlined in this document provide guidance for collaborative work undertaken by Inuit and federal partners, including but not restricted to the work of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, as well as co‑development undertaken pursuant to the Inuit Nunangat Policy. This includes the development of content for federal legislation, regulations, policies, programs, services, and initiatives, and monitoring and evaluation criteria (collectively referred to as “initiatives” or “processes” below). These principles shall be read together with the guiding principles of the Inuit Nunangat Policy.

The principles highlight the importance of good faith negotiations and state that, “Co-development is substantive and maximizes collaboration.”

It also highlights the need for joint design and delivery and respect for governance and decision making. The latter is described as:

Co-development processes improve Inuit and federal decision-making by providing accurate and transparent information to leaders prior to a decision being made. . . .

So the argument that President Obed has made via his press conferences and subsequent interviews on this bill is that it fails to meet the basic minimum standards of co-development that are included in this document. Given the fact that it bears the government’s logo, this important point cannot be overlooked.

The engagement leading up to the first draft, according to information provided during the consideration of the bill in the other place, was conducted by the interim board and transitional committee of the TRC’s council.

Senators, while this work is welcome, it cannot and should not count as the type of engagement required by these co-development principles I have just referred to, and under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Even the TRC’s Call to Action 53, which has led us to this bill, was also explicit that the legislation to establish this council should occur “. . . in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples . . . .”

Has Canada truly delivered on this Call to Action in consultation and collaboration with Aboriginal peoples by punting the duty to consult on this bill to the interim board and transition committee?

It is the sole responsibility of the Government of Canada to conduct the engagement on legislation that meets the co‑development principles as laid out in the ICPC document, and it is also Canada’s responsibility to meet the threshold of obtaining free, prior and informed consent on legislative initiatives that impact Indigenous peoples as outlined under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

May I ask you to pay careful attention with me to the exact words and high expectations clearly laid out in Article 19 of UNDRIP with respect to legislation:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Honourable senators, this is a very clear, high standard which Canada has committed to in Bill C-15. I submit that this bill, Bill C-29, is clearly a legislative measure which affects the Inuit in my region and the other regions Inuit live in Canada.

How shall we deal with what the respected national leader of the Inuit in Canada, an organization which clearly represents Inuit in Canada, says was not co-developed as envisioned by UNDRIP and Bill C-15, and not followed as set out clearly in the principles for co-development agreed to by the Inuit in Canada? Shall we overlook this disrespect for co-development in a bill which, ironically, is aimed at advancing reconciliation? Or shall we insist that our federal government start again, but this time undertake a true co-development process for this reconciliation bill?

It is the federal government that has the resources to engage with Indigenous peoples properly, and the federal government needs to ensure that we are engaging with all Indigenous peoples.

We have heard time and time again that the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, does not represent all First Nations people in this country. By only engaging with the three national Indigenous organizations, we are leaving out people such as traditional treaty holders who do not feel represented by the AFN. We are leaving out some modern treaty holders and folks who live off-reserve. When we’re talking about something as important as reconciliation, we cannot afford to keep leaving people out of the conversation.

So on principle I have some concerns about this bill. After speaking with President Obed directly, I believe that it is not entirely clear whether this bill supports or supplants the Inuit-Crown Partnership process. I have been assured by officials — and I should thank Senator LaBoucane-Benson for facilitating a discussion with officials on this very point — that it simply supports and complements the process by reporting on progress made with regard to reconciliation generally.

However, I’ve also been told that it will be up to the first board of this proposed council to set their mandate and that they will have flexibility in determining the depth, breadth and scope of their work. To my mind, unless we are more explicit on the expected role of the council as complementary to the permanent bilateral mechanisms, it would be possible for the board to set their agenda in a way that could directly or indirectly interfere with the important work of these important tables, and that would be an unnecessary complication to a process that, at least for the Inuit, has clearly found its rhythm over the past seven years. They have done important work with tangible results.

I would also like to point out, honourable colleagues, that the timing of this bill is of concern to me. I recognize that it responds to a TRC Call to Action. However, let us look at the political landscape at the time the recommendation was made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The federal government did not have in place an explicit policy of government-to-government interactions with Indigenous communities, instead relying on the relationship as defined in the Indian Act, the Constitution and various other pieces of legislation. There were no permanent bilateral mechanisms and no formalized process for advancing Indigenous-led initiatives and priorities. While I understand the government’s desire to address the low-hanging fruit and continue to make progress on implementing all 94 Calls to Action, as they promised to do eight years ago, the fact of the matter is that the establishment of the council, I would submit, now makes less sense than it did in 2015.

I also feel the timing is wrong given the expected report on Bill C-15’s implementation. As you know, the UNDRIP implementation consultations are legislated to end this year, and both houses are to receive a copy of what should be a co‑developed action plan.

I feel it would have been more prudent to wait for that plan, as there may be other mechanisms that are better suited to monitoring the overall progress of this government’s reconciliation agenda brought forward by Indigenous partners.

For instance, during the proceedings on Bill C-15, the Inuit repeatedly brought up the need for an Indigenous human rights tribunal and accountability measures led by Indigenous people. At the ICPC table — the Inuit-Crown table — the need for an Indigenous human rights tribunal and a new, modern treaty review commission have been on the ICPC agenda since 2017 and 2015 respectively. These would seem to be more concrete and targeted ways of addressing issues surrounding reconciliation efforts than the proposed non-profit entity in this bill and an annual report to Parliament. We do not need more reports. We need tangible action and rigorous accountability mechanisms.

I also believe that we need to ensure that we take the time, during the committee study of this bill, to look at the question of who is included and who is represented. This is also going to be controversial. As I said earlier, we are leaving a lot of people out of important conversations. When we constitute the board, certain Indigenous groups and organizations are given specific seats that they can nominate a board member to, while other legitimate and representative organizations are not. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who represent urban, off-reserve and unregistered First Nations, were given a seat when the committee in the other place amended the bill, but that amendment was removed when the bill was again considered by that chamber. Given the known issues around registration under the Indian Act, senators should carefully consider whether we should put them back in.

While the Native Women’s Association of Canada was granted a seat, giving an important voice to First Nations women, the voices of Inuit women were not included with Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada left unrecognized in the bill.

Colleagues, in speaking to this bill on second reading, it is my hope that we can give this bill the due consideration it needs in committee. I think we should hear from as many partners and stakeholders as possible. If the committee decides to proceed with this somewhat problematic bill, I trust that the minister was sincere when he told Nunatsiaq News in their December 2, 2022, article on this bill that he was “. . . open to any reasonable amendments in the Senate.”

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]