THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Friday, June 10, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met with videoconference this day at 2:01 p.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to start our meeting by acknowledging that the Senate of Canada is situated in the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. However, since this meeting is hybrid, senators are conducting their work from the tradition territories of many nations.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I would now like to introduce the members participating today: Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Audette from Quebec, Senator Christmas from Nova Scotia, Senator Duncan from the Yukon, Senator Loffreda from Quebec, Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick and Senator Pate from Ontario.
I would like to remind senators and witnesses joining remotely to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized. Should any technical challenges arise, please bring it up. I would also like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed. However, official proceedings can be shared via the SenVu website.
Today, we are resuming our study into the federal implementation of An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général). In specific, this meeting will explore the process of obtaining status under the registration provisions of the Indian Act and the population projections of individuals eligible for status under the provisions.
I want to note that “Indian” is a term that is considered outdated and even offensive. However, since it has been used historically to identify Indigenous peoples in Canada, it is still ingrained in the federal laws and other areas.
With that, I would like to introduce our first witness. With us today, we have Ms. Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee and Co-Founder, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. Ms. Day, thank you for the correspondence you sent to our attention on June 3. I now invite you to provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer session with committee members.
Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee and Co-Founder, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action: Thank you very much, senator, and thank you for the invitation to be here today.
FAFIA, the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, supports and is a member of the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group whose composition is described in our briefs. This group has worked together since 2016 with a goal of bringing an end to the 153 years of sex discrimination in the Indian Act. The group worked with this committee to obtain the 6(1)(a) “all the way” amendment in 2017, then worked to get it promulgated in 2019 and is now working to get the amendment implemented as well as to see the elimination of remaining sex discrimination.
The Government of Canada’s official estimate of the number of women and their descendants who are newly entitled to status registration by the 6(1)(a) “all the way” amendment is 270,000 to 450,000. This estimate is cited by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and by the government in its report to Parliament on Bill S-3, which you are now studying.
Indigenous Services Canada reports that between December 2017 and March 2022, it has registered 27,338 people under all provisions of Bill S-3. That means that the number registered under the 2019 6(1)(a) “all the way” amendment is some smaller part of that 27,000.
That represents a profound failure to implement the human rights of First Nations women. No one would expect all of the 450,000 possible new registrants to apply or to be registered in three years, but the small number registered demonstrates that the government is not taking the actions needed to inform the First Nations women and their descendants that they are entitled and to assist them to get registered.
Now it appears that Indigenous Services Canada has a new response. In a recent communication, ISC indicates that there is a new report from Statistics Canada that “updates projections on S-3.” ISC states:
Statistics Canada has recognized that it is plausible that the future number of S-3 registrations may be lower than the initial estimated range, and uptake could occur over a longer time period. Under the new … models from Statistics Canada … S-3 may yield an average addition of 11,000 newly entitled individuals per year over 23 years. This is much closer aligned to the Department’s current processing rates.
In other words, ISC does not admit that, so far, it has failed to take the necessary action to inform and register the women and their descendants who are newly entitled, according to its expert demographer. Instead, ISC appears to be changing the estimates and the time frame. Since the estimates define the scope of the rights violation and the scope of the government’s obligation to remedy it, they are extremely important. If ISC changes the estimates now, it does not have to change its actions; it moves the goal post so that the estimates match the low numbers it is registering.
If there is something wrong with the official estimates that the government has held out and relied upon for five years, we should know what the errors are. Any new estimates and the assumptions they are based on need to be subjected to rigorous and public review, a review in which First Nations women and their advocates can participate. The rights of women are at stake here.
There are different ways of depriving women and their descendants of the Indian status to which they are entitled. It can be done legislatively, as it has been for 153 years, but it can also be done by changing estimates, making information about entitlement obscure, making the process difficult and hard to navigate, and keeping registration to a trickle.
Here are some questions: Is the Government of Canada committed to correcting the 153 years of Indian Act sex discrimination and the damage it has caused First Nations women, their descendants and communities? Is ISC officially saying that the 2017 estimate of women and their descendants newly entitled to status was wrong, and is it now adopting a new estimate? If ISC is changing the estimate of entitled persons, will it initiate a rigorous public review in which First Nations women and their advocates can participate? Will ISC engage in a Canada-wide proactive campaign to ensure that all those who are entitled to status are actually informed? When will the government address the discriminatory effects of the loss of status, including loss of band membership, treaty rights, political voice and participation?
There are additional questions that need to be asked about the remaining discrimination in the Indian Act, but my time is up. I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Day. We will now begin the question and answer session, beginning with our deputy chair, Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Day, for bringing this topic to our attention. As you are aware, we were in the final stages of completing our report on Bill S-3 when your correspondence was brought to our attention, so we’re pleased to be able to have the opportunity today to look further into it. I must admit that it does look suspicious that Indigenous Services Canada has revised its estimates to align with its current rate of registration. We’ll definitely speak to officials later today to try to get an understanding of why those changes occurred.
I understand the rate of registration to be about 11,000 persons per year. Why do you think the rate of registration has been so low over the past years?
Ms. Day: I think it’s low, Senator Christmas, because the women and their descendants who have been excluded by this sex discrimination don’t know that they are now entitled. The Indian Act is a Byzantine and obscure piece of legislation. Unless the government does a proactive campaign to make sure that people know they are now entitled to status and that the terrain has shifted, it is not a surprise that we have this low showing of numbers. A public campaign is extraordinarily important.
In addition to that, we have said repeatedly to Indigenous Services Canada that the registration process is extremely difficult. The people we are talking about need help navigating it. They need assistance in this process. They need help from the department to identify the documents they need to get the information that they need.
What we have here is a failure to do an information campaign and a failure to actively assist people who have been excluded by the government’s own discrimination for many years. The population we’re talking about, as everyone on this committee knows, is a population of people who are socially and economically disadvantaged. They are, we think, likely elderly. We also think they are likely to be in urban rather than rural or reserve populations. Thinking about how to make a campaign effective to get information to those people is extraordinarily important, and it has not been done. I think that’s the explanation for the low numbers of applicants.
Senator Christmas: Ms. Day, this bill was passed in 2017. Have you seen any indication of a broad public or national campaign to reach those individuals who may be eligible to be registered under Bill S-3?
Ms. Day: No, we have not seen that. The department has told us about initiatives that they have taken and efforts that they have made, but their efforts are not penetrating the places they need to. We have said repeatedly that different things have to be done, that it has to be done in different ways. We have suggested that the government use universal ways of contacting Canadians through tax notifications, Employment Insurance and other benefits that are universal. That hasn’t been done. The efforts that ISC has made are simply not penetrating to the population where it needs to go.
There needs to be something much more public, Senator Christmas. It’s important that leaders actually get into public places and say to people, “Look, we know that this sex discrimination caused of hundreds of thousands of people to be excluded from status. Now, we’re anxious to be sure that everyone knows that they should be considering whether or not they have a First Nations ancestor who was a woman from whom they may be entitled to receive status.” There is a simple message that needs to go out. It needs to go out in a public way, and real leadership is required here.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Day. Certainly, there is a huge discrepancy, as you mentioned. The Parliamentary Budget Officer originally estimated that 270,000 to 450,000 people were eligible, so to have only 27,000 registered after almost five years is troubling. In today’s newspaper here in Cape Breton, I noticed an ad looking for those individuals who may have been affected by unclean or dirty drinking water. I thought to myself, “If the government can do a national campaign about safe drinking water, why couldn’t there be a campaign for people who are possibly eligible under Bill S-3?” Anyway, thank you Ms. Day.
Senator Duncan: I am standing in for my colleague Senator Hartling today. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question and to follow up on this issue.
I’m concerned about these five years and the government’s failure to share this information, to have people who are eligible registered and to work with First Nations, which is a term I commonly use, in a government-to-government manner.
My question, in part, is based on my responsibility as a senator to represent my region. I’m inclined to look at the government and say, “How can I help you? What can I do?” I’m wondering if, perhaps, it’s time this issue is taken out of the hands of Indigenous Services Canada. Has that option been explored? I am thinking of the Assembly of First Nations, perhaps, as an alternative. We have a dynamic regional chief from the Yukon. Is there an independent organization that understands this and that understands that the most appropriate approach might not be through advertisements or social media because of the digital divide in our country? My question is, is it time to take this out of the hands of Indigenous Services Canada?
Ms. Day: Thank you for that question.
We certainly have encouraged Indigenous Services Canada to be creative in doing this. In our view, it’s important that many different ways of doing this are explored. It will be different in different regions. Different groups will have different kinds of reach in different regions. However, there has been no effort to expand the network of information and the ways of getting it out there.
There are many possibilities. There is a lot of creativity required here. Resources need to be put into it in order to be sure that this job is done well. This has to do with the government’s responsibility for actually implementing the rights. Until the government has made a substantial, clear effort, which should inform all of those who are entitled, it is not living up to its obligations. We want to see creativity, different kinds of outreach and different organizations taking on responsibility and ways of doing outreach that they think will reach their communities.
Senator Duncan: I appreciate that we have talked around different creativity and other options. Government has had five years or more to get this done. They haven’t done it. Is it time that Indigenous Services Canada is relieved of — perhaps not the funding; maybe there’s another alternative — the job and the job be given to someone else with the clear direction, “This has to be done and here is your time frame. Here is your date?”
Ms. Day: I think the responsibility needs to be given to a lot of other actors, so I agree with that. I think there are other actors who are willing and able. ISC should be using them, and the responsibility for doing it should be turned over to people who can invent for their communities.
Senator Duncan: I would suggest, though, that control would have to remain with one fixed body.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Day, for appearing and for the information you shared with the committee. It has been incredibly illuminating.
The group that FAFIA, is part of, the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group, is that a group with which the government consulted on these issues?
Secondly, you talk about the need for proactive approaches. I’m wondering what kinds of proactive approaches you recommended to the government in this regard.
Ms. Day: We have recommended to the government the kinds of actions that I’m talking about to the committee now. We have said there needs to be real opportunity for different kinds of organizations to pick up this need to get information out. We have made it clear that we are willing to talk to the government more about the details of how such a process could work, but that conversation has not happened. That’s where we are now.
Senator Pate: Has the government sought out your opinion, or have you had to provide it yourself proactively?
Ms. Day: Has the government sought out our opinion about the estimates?
Senator Pate: Yes, the estimates and the process by which they have followed up since Bill S-3 was passed.
Ms. Day: Our interaction with the government since 2019 has certainly been initiated by us.
Until very recently, we didn’t know anything about this question about numbers. We have been relying on what the government has said to us about numbers since 2017 — which is 270,000 to 450,000 — and assumed that was what we were all working with, until we were recently informed otherwise. Those are the bases we have been working on.
I would like to point out, too, that the matter of accelerating registration and the sense of its important has been recognized by the Government of Canada because it included it in the Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People. It’s included there precisely because everyone has recognized that the sex discrimination is a root cause of the murders and disappearances, and until this discrimination is fixed, all of the damage that has been done contributes to the violence that Indigenous women and girls experience in this country.
Senator Pate: I don’t know if you care to posit a theory, but do you have any thoughts yourself beyond what you have already generously shared with the committee about why the government may now be changing tack in terms of numbers? To your knowledge, has there been any plan by the government to follow up on that call for justice that you just pointed out from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls?
Ms. Day: Let me say in response that one of the things the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group has said to the government — very clearly and recently — is that we would like to see a plan, with goals and timetables, for how all of these initiatives will work together and for what really needs to be done in order to make sure the women are informed and get registered.
We presented those goals and timetables to Minister Hajdu. She asked us if we would ask Minister Freeland for additional resources for the registration process in the budget in March 2022. We did that. We wrote to Minister Freeland and gave her extensive reasons why the process needed to be changed and how there needed to be a definite plan, along with goals and timetables, so this registration could get done. No new money was allocated in Budget 2022. We don’t know whether Minister Hajdu actually asked for new resources. So that seems to have gone nowhere. That’s exactly the thing that we have been looking for repeatedly. Where is the plan? Where are the steps laid out that we’re going to take? What is the government going to do and in what particular time frame? What goals are we setting? Let’s do it in a really clear, public way and let us contribute all of the ideas that we possibly can in real dialogue.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Ms. Day, for being here and sharing your concerns on this important issue.
I am filling in for Senator Mary Coyle, so I’m glad to be able to ask a question.
A lot of ground was covered on the question I wanted to ask. Ms. Day, perhaps you wish to elaborate further. Based on the conversations you had with Indigenous Services Canada and the government, why do you feel appropriate measures were not taken to correct this issue? You mentioned resources. You mentioned the conversations that weren’t had. If we were to prioritize and make top three recommendations, what would they be? How can we help you further in advancing this important issue and cause?
Ms. Day: Thank you.
I think the top three recommendations are ones that we have made repeatedly. Let’s have a plan. Let’s set goals and timetables. Let’s be clear about what steps need to be taken. Let’s have a very proactive and effective public education campaign and public information campaign. Those things are just crucial to getting this done.
I don’t like to speculate about intentions, but I have to say that anyone with my background — any First Nations woman with experience and any legal expert looking at this and at the history of Canada’s dealing with sex discrimination — has to say it has been an agony. It has been very difficult to get the government to move on Indian Act sex discrimination.
We’ve had 50 years of legal challenges and petitions, and every single time women win something, they get the smallest sliver of what the government thinks it has to do in order to just be legally okay — and not more. So here we are. The legal challenges to this discrimination in Canada started in 1970. Here we are 52 years later, and we’re still fighting about this.
I would think that any government really committed to women’s rights and to human rights would consider this the moment to really ask, “What does a really effective, active campaign to implement women’s human rights look like? How are we going to do it? What resources do we need to assign to it, and let’s go.” I’m sorry that’s not what is happening.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
The Chair: We are almost out of time, but I’m going to ask a quick question. Would you agree that the ongoing gender inequalities under the Indian Act are an example of prescient, assimilationist and genocidal state actions?
Ms. Day: Yes, I would. I think this is a very important way for all of us to understand what this sex discrimination actually means in Canadian colonial history. We know the terrible assimilationist impact and damage of residential schools. I’m glad to say that we know more and that there is more talk in Canada now about that than there has ever been before in my lifetime. The sex discrimination in the Indian Act is another piece of that forced assimilation plan. Incredible damage has been done to communities as a whole, to nations, to women and to their children. However, I think we are still not at the point of admitting that this is part of that big colonial picture of assimilation and genocide. I think it’s important for us to think about it and to talk about it that way now.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Day. We are running out of time but I know Senator Patterson has his hand up so I want to give him a chance to ask a question.
Andrea Mugny, Clerk of the Committee: As Senator Patterson is experiencing technical difficulties, he has asked a question via chat. “Can we use her email as evidence?”
Ms. Day: I think that’s a request for permission to use it. Yes, you can.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you for that.
Ms. Day: There is also other correspondence, for example, the correspondence I referred to with Minister Freeland. If that would be of help to the committee, we would be pleased to provide it.
The Chair: Yes, it would, very much so. Thank you, Ms. Day.
I’m now going to read a message from Senator Audette. “Thank you to Shelagh Day and Ms. McIvor for all their work. They never gave up for all the Indigenous women and girls.”
Ms. Day: Thank you very much, senator.
The Chair: With that, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Ms. Day for meeting with us today.
I remind everyone the focus of the meeting is on the registration for and population projections of First Nation people with registered status under the Indian Act.
I would now like to introduce our next panel of witnesses: from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer; and Mark Mahabir, Director of Policy (Costing) and General Counsel; from Statistics Canada, Laurent Martel, Director, Centre for Demography; and Stéphanie Langlois, Senior Analyst, Centre for Demography.
Mr. Giroux and Mr. Martel will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes each. We will then move to a question and answer session of approximately three minutes per senator. I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time. I will also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the three-minute period for questions and answers.
I remind everyone that during the question and answer period, committee members will be given priority. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. They will then be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat.
I will now invite Mr. Giroux to give his remarks.
[Translation]
Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. We are pleased to be here to discuss our report, “Bill S-3: Addressing sex based inequities in Indian registration,” which was prepared at the request of the Honourable Senator Marilou McPhedran and Mr. Robert–Falcon Ouellette, M.P. for Winnipeg-Centre and published on December 5, 2017. With me today I have Mark Mahabir, Director of Policy (Costing) and General Counsel.
Bill S-3, introduced in the Forty-second Parliament, sought to amend the Indian Act to address residual discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to eligibility for registration on the Indian Register. The Senate proposed an amendment which would effectively extend eligibility for registration to almost all persons with First Nations ancestry. We were specifically asked to consider the financial costs associated with the amendments to Bill S-3 made by the Senate and the House of Commons.
[English]
As Bill S-3 was initially proposed, between 28,000 and 35,000 additional First Nations persons would be eligible to register. It was expected that approximately 90% of those persons would register, of whom 2% were expected to move to reserves. The 3% of non-status First Nations persons already on reserve were assumed to be among those granted status. The related cost was estimated to be $19 million in upfront administrative costs plus $55 million per year to maintain program service levels and tax exemptions.
Under the amendments passed by the Senate on June 1, 2017, approximately 670,000 additional First Nations persons would be eligible to register. This estimate reflects the number of persons self-reporting First Nations ancestry who are not already registered. Under this scenario, approximately 270,000 additional eligible persons were expected to register due to the more remote connections between this group and First Nations communities. None of these additional status Indians were expected to return to reserves or to already reside on reserves. We estimated the financial impact of the amendment to be approximately $52 million in upfront administrative costs, plus $352 million per year to maintain service levels and tax exemptions. The total cost of Bill S-3, as amended by the Senate, was expected to be about $71 million in one-time administrative costs plus $407 million a year in ongoing costs.
In accordance with my mandate, we recently released a comparative analysis on the Estimates of the department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the department of Indigenous Services Canada in response to a request by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs of the House of Commons. Based on our analysis, despite the significant increase in the financial resources allocated to providing Indigenous services, the ability of the organizations to achieve the targets that they have specified has declined.
Mark Mahabir and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding this report or other PBO work.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Giroux.
[Translation]
Laurent Martel, Director, Centre for Demography, Statistics Canada: Honourable senators, we would like to start by thanking you for this opportunity to present Statistics Canada’s work on population projections of Canada’s Indigenous populations.
My name is Laurent Martel and I’m the Director of the Centre for Demography and responsible for the national statistics agency’s Population Projections Program.
Here with me today is Stéphanie Langlois, Senior Analyst in the Population Projections Program and principal analyst for the most recent Indigenous population projections, which the agency published on October 6, 2021. Those projections were requested by and carried out in close cooperation with Indigenous Services Canada.
Three scenarios on the evolution of the Indigenous population were provided in these projections: low, medium and high growth. Statistics Canada always publishes its projections based on more than one scenario to reflect the inherent uncertainty of any projection exercise, which in no way is intended to be a prediction.
For example, according to the projection results, the First Nations population could increase from 1.1 million in 2016 to between 1.5 million and 1.8 million by 2041. Of course, a full suite of results is currently available on Statistics Canada’s website.
The starting point for these projections, released in October, is the 2016 census. They were produced using an advanced tool called Demosim, which can project a number of population characteristics simultaneously.
In a projection exercise, fertility, mortality and future migration must be taken into account. The Demosim tool also allows us to take into account other factors important in the renewal of particular populations living in Canada.
For Indigenous populations, two factors are important because they account for a significant portion of population growth.
The first is changes in the self-reported Indigenous group of individuals over their lifetime.
The second is registrations in the Indian Register and changes to registration categories over their lifetime.
Since at least 1986, changes to an individual’s self-reported Indigenous group have been an important factor in the growth of First Nations populations, for example.
In Statistics Canada’s projections, changes in reporting were analyzed in four periods between censuses, called “intercensal” periods, namely 1996 to 2001, 2001 to 2006, 2006 to 2011 and 2011 to 2016. We made some assumptions about the future and, in the early years of projections, we used various reference periods to vary the intensity of the trend. Over the longer term, all scenarios align with the average for the entire period from 1996 to 2016.
Only one assumption about future evolution was developed for registrations and changes from category 6(2) to 6(1) under Bills C-31 and C-3, as well as for late registrations and changes from category 6(2) to 6(1) for various reasons.
The registrations under Bills C-31 and C-3 as well as changes from category 6(2) to 6(1) under Bills C-3 an S-3 are only possible from 2016 to 2021 in the first five years of the projection. They are based on number provided using the Indian registry. After 2021, the assumption is that their number will be quite low, and thus will have little impact on the future of Canada’s Indigenous populations.
Late registrations and changes of category for various reasons are possible for the full projection period up to 2041, and are based on annual average numbers taken from the Indian registry for the period from 2007 to 2017.
There is greater uncertainty about future registrations resulting from Bill S-3, so three future evolution assumptions were developed for the projections. These three assumptions vary the number of registrations by 2041 between 34,000, 66,000 and 250,000 people.
We have also taken into account different enrolment rates in order to calculate these assumptions, as well as the proportion of enrolments that will occur by 2041, since enrolments may occur beyond 2041.
I see that my speaking time is up. In closing, I’d like to mention that on September 21, Statistics Canada will be releasing new 2021 census data on First Nations, Métis and Inuit in Canada, which, of course, will include information on registered people. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martel.
Now we are going to go to the question and answer session, and I remind senators we have about 10 minutes left in this panel. We will start with our deputy chair, Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.
My first question is to Mr. Giroux. If I understand your report from 2017, you originally had forecasted 28,000 to 35,000 new eligible registrants, and then when the amendments were adopted, you upped that number to 670,000. I’m trying to understand the basis of your calculations. You mentioned that this was based on those individuals who have self-reported First Nation ancestry. Could you elaborate, Mr. Giroux, how you obtained that information about self-reported individuals with First Nation ancestry? Where did you get that number, and could you also describe to us how you used that assumption in your projections?
Mr. Giroux: Thank you, senator.
As I briefly alluded to in my opening remarks, that report was published under my predecessor’s auspices. I will venture an explanation. It was based on census results. The uptake to derive the number of persons who would be applying for status was based on a similar experience under Bill C-3, which introduced amendments that were broadly similar in nature. My colleague Mark Mahabir can expand on that, given that he was there at the time and he contributed more directly to the report.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
Mark Mahabir, Director of Policy (Costing) and General Counsel, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: Thank you, senator, for the question.
The actual data we used for our analysis was the 2016 census. On that census, there was a question asking individuals if they identified with First Nation ancestry. That was the data we used, and that’s how we calculated the 670,000. Of the 670,000, we used an uptake, or we assumed that 40% of those individuals would apply and be registered. That’s how we got to the 270,000 new individuals that would be registered.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Martel from Statistics Canada. Hearing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer used the 2016 census data, and specifically those who had declared themselves as having First Nation ancestry, in your report in 2021, did you use a similar database? Did you use the 2016 census of those individuals who were identifying themselves as having First Nation ancestry?
Mr. Martel: Thank you, senator for the question.
Exactly. We used the same data as the 2016 census. At the time we developed our projections — we developed them mostly in 2020 — the 2021 census was not done, so we used the latest census available and the question on ethnic origins and ancestry. We used exactly the same data. There are very small differences because we were later in the process than when our colleagues computed their numbers. There are very minor differences. I could explain more, but they are not very significant. But it is the same data used to build our assumptions for the projections, yes.
Senator Christmas: Thank you. My conclusion is the same data was used in both projections.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses.
For the original projections made at the time when we were looking at Bill S-3, my understanding is that Stewart Clatworthy, who looked at those projections, based them on estimates of entitlement. Now it sounds like Statistics Canada is basing the estimates on the basis of population growth based on existing registration in a context where we haven’t seen the increased proactive measures that were expected pursuant to Bill S-3.
I would like both Mr. Giroux and Mr. Martel to comment. In your view, why are the Statistics Canada projections in 2021 different from those produced by the Parliamentary Budget Officer? If they are on the basis of entitlement versus projections based on population growth and existing registration status, I would like that confirmed please. If it’s not that, then please provide the explanation.
Mr. Martel: I can jump in first. I think the numbers are very close between the two institutions. We used basically the same starting point, the 2016 census, as the pool of people that can be entitled to registration.
We have to understand that for the sake of population projections, we may have a different context than others. One thing that creates a difference between the numbers that you have seen from Statistics Canada and other sources is the fact we have made an additional assumption that is based on the fact, by 2041, 80% of those entitled to ancestry would have actually registered, which means, in other words, that 20% would be benefiting from ancestry after 2041.
We have seen with other bills, such as Bill C-31, that sometimes the number of registrations is spread over a long period of time. We still recently got some registration under Bill C-31, which is 35 years after the bill was implemented. We stopped the projections in 2041. We assume there will still be people registering, but later than 2041. That creates a significant difference in the numbers you are seeing from Statistics Canada and other places. I know the numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer are for the full lifespan. They are saying over a very long period of time, without limit. We have a limit, and our limit is 2041.
Senator Pate: Mr. Giroux?
Mr. Giroux: Maybe Mark wants to add something.
Mr. Mahabir: Thank you for the question.
That’s true. Our numbers are for basically the total eligible population. We did not look at how many people would register each year. We used an assumption that only 40% of the total eligible population would be registered. That’s how we got from the 670,000 to the 270,000.
Senator Duncan: Mr. Giroux, you have reported to us frequently at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. It seems to me that this process at the heart of this issue is the registration process. It was described as a Byzantine process earlier, and I couldn’t agree more. Coming into it, looking at it as a non-Indigenous person, it is very difficult to understand. I think we all appreciate that the end result is that it is about benefits and it’s about money, and we are not reaching the people we need to reach and we are not registering the people who should be registered. Mr. Giroux, you frequently report on performance indicators by departments, and you have reported that Indigenous Services Canada has not met their performance indicators. Have you examined and is there a report on Indigenous Services Canada listing or not listing the complete registration as a performance indicator and having met or not met that performance indicator of registering all those who should be registered?
Mr. Giroux: Thank you.
That’s an interesting question. When we looked at the performance indicators of both ISC and CIRNAC, we looked at, in aggregate, their performance indicators and how many of them were consistent over five years and how many had changed. There are dozens of performance indicators for each of these two departments. Unfortunately, I cannot remember off the top of my head whether the registration process is one or many of these performance indicators.
Senator Duncan: Mr. Chair, perhaps we could have an elaboration of that response in writing. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: My question is for Mr. Martel from Statistics Canada.
Are there any other important aspects you have not covered that you can share with us on your assumptions regarding First Nations population projections for your low, medium and high growth models?
Mr. Martel: Thank you for your question, senator. We look at the amount of population growth to make projections about populations. Obviously, I could have talked about the differences in mortality and life expectancy between the various Indigenous populations and the rest of the population. We have taken these phenomena into account within the demographic projections, of course. We have taken into account the differences in fertility and the number of children per woman between the different Indigenous peoples and the rest of the Canadian population. In Nunavut, currently, the number of children per woman is 2.7 children. For Canada as a whole, this index was 1.4 children per woman in 2020, the lowest level ever observed. You can see that there is a gap: 1.4 compared to 2.7. We take into account differences of this order when assessing fertility in our projections. The same applies to internal migration on and off reserve, which we take into account in the model.
First Nations people do not have the same propensity as others to leave reserves or migrate to other Indigenous reserves. These are all important phenomena that we have taken into account. Apart from demographic phenomena, we also take into account the phenomena of changes in the declaration of Indigenous identity over the course of individuals’ lives. We can analyze five-year periods dating back to the 1996 censuses to see how the phenomenon has evolved in the country over the past 25 years. We had made three assumptions about changes in reporting over the life course in the last parts of our projections. It’s a sophisticated model that allows us a degree of refinement in terms of our projections.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: I want to mention in response to Senator Duncan’s question to the officials that if you would like to provide a more detailed response to that or anything else, you can certainly provide it in writing. We ask you to do it before Monday.
Senator Christmas had a question about the PBO projections for 10 years. That would be another question that you don’t have to answer now.
The time for this second panel is complete. Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Martel.
I will now introduce our next panel of witnesses. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister; Michael Walsh, Senior Director of Registration and Integrated Program Management; and John Gordon, Indian Registrar, Office of the Indian Registrar. Please note that Ms. Fox will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, and we will subsequently move to a short question and answer session of approximately three minutes per senator.
We have a limited amount of time per panel. I ask you to please try to be brief and to the point wherever possible. To keep us on track, I’ll let the witness know when they have one minute left for allocated time for remarks. Similarly, I will let senators and witnesses know when they have one minute left during the period of questions and answers. Thank you for your cooperation.
Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom will use the “raise hand” feature. You will then be acknowledged by the clerk.
I want to invite Ms. Fox to begin her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, Indigenous Services Canada: Kwe Kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello. I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. Thank you for another opportunity to update the committee on our department’s progress in implementing Bill S-3. That said, I agree that there remains a great deal of work to be done. I welcome this chance to reinforce the Government of Canada’s commitments to gender equality and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, which this legislation underscores.
Bill S-3 confirms that Canada is determined to redress the challenges and injustices faced by many Indigenous women and their families due to sex-based inequities under the Indian Act. The Act reinstates entitlement to generations of First Nations people including those who may have been previously denied entitlement to register under the Indian Act.
Mr. Chair, I understand that you seek clarity regarding the numbers associated with registrations to date compared to the projected figures when this process began in 2017.
[English]
I’m pleased to report that as of April 4 of this year, a total of 45,663 applications have been received since Bill S-3 came into force. Of those, nearly 86% have been finalized or partially completed, with approximately 6,500 applications remaining to be processed. We know that some are complex cases and it will likely take time, but we’re committed to serving the public and processing cases as timely as possible.
The department does acknowledge the impact of delays in registration and is taking steps to modernize the process to make it more efficient and client-centred. We continue to make key investments in processing capacity to ensure that wait times for individuals continue to improve. We’re working to improve the partnership process with Indigenous organizations, including the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women’s Association of Canada, to provide more information about registration and how to apply for these newly entitled.
Also, I can confirm the successful prioritization of older applicants who are newly entitled under Bill S-3. Applications from all individuals who are 75 or older have now been completed, and 61 files remain for individuals who are 65 years old and over.
As a result of these efforts, almost 32,000 people have been added to the Indian register. This brings the total registered population in Canada to 1,049,183 as of June 1, 2022.
I realize those numbers are lower than some initial forecasts. Some estimates anticipated that as many as 88,500 applications would have been received by now. I will offer background and context to explain the difference in what was projected and what has materialized.
In preparation for Bill S-3, Indigenous Services Canada accepted demographic projections based on the work done by demographer Stewart Clatworthy as well as the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In 2017, both published reports based on differing assumptions. The department accepted a range of projections suggesting that between 270,000 to 450,000 individuals could be eligible for registration under Bill S-3. Based on those figures, we estimated an average of between 27,000 and 45,000 new registrations per year over 10 years.
More recently — and I think as you have heard in your previous panel — StatsCan analyzed the demographics as part of its projections of Indigenous populations and households in Canada based on the results of the 2016 census and the 2016 registered data. That analysis of data sources, methods, assumption and scenarios was published in October 2021. It provided more up-to-date Bill S-3 registration assumptions for the period of 2018 until 2041.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the latest Indigenous population projections differ significantly from those of previous years. Statistics Canada now recognizes that the future number of Bill S-3 registrations may be lower than the initial estimated range, and that uptake may occur over a longer period. Under the new models from Statistics Canada — and based on its highest projection over the 2018 to 2041 period — Bill S-3 may yield an average of 11,000 newly entitled individuals per year over 23 years.
This is aligned much more closely, and is consistent with, Indigenous Services Canada’s current rate for receiving and processing applications. Wherever the final numbers may lead, I reaffirm our department’s determination to ensure every individual eligible to benefit from this legislation is afforded the opportunity to submit an application.
We have invested over $40 million to engage with First Nations to increase awareness of Bill S-3, strengthen processing capacity, develop policy changes, and advance digital solutions, including an online application process.
[English]
Undeniably, more remains to be done to fix band membership and registration-related issues in the Indian Act. ISC continues to co-develop solutions with First Nations partners to address the remaining inequities that impact First Nations people and their inherent rights. I’m confident that our collaboration with First Nations, experts and allies will create a constructive path forward.
Meegwetch, qujannamiik, marsee, thank you.
[Translation]
I’m ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: We will now begin the question and answer session, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Fox, for joining us again.
You mentioned in your opening remarks the discrepancy between the earlier PBO projections from 2017 and the Statistics Canada projections from 2021. Could you elaborate on why you think those two projections differ so significantly?
Ms. Fox: I’m not a data expert, and I don’t manage the data department, but we worked closely with StatsCan and other partners to try to make the best determination of the number of requests we anticipated coming in on a year-to-year basis to have the capacity to manage those requests.
At the end of the day, regardless of what the projected estimates were and whether they could change in the future, our commitment at ISC is to try to be as nimble and as dedicated as we can be to process the numbers that we get in each year. Of course, this data allows us to plan, to forecast and to equip our teams with the ability to react to what comes in to us on a year-to-year basis. We’re going to continue to work with these organizations to get the data we need to inform operational requirements and the capacity of our teams across the country to be able to deal with this.
I’m not getting into the data sources per se. That’s not my area of expertise, but we will keep working with them. We read all of the PBO reports carefully. We work with them closely on a number of issues. All of that helps inform how we manage the need, our resources and the requests that we make through financial cycles in order to be well positioned to respond.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Fox.
I was reflecting on the comments from Shelagh Day earlier today. She commented that she believed one of the reasons for the revised projections was the failure of ISC to conduct a good public campaign to reach Canadians who may be eligible to be registered. Could you describe for us what national public campaigns have been launched by ISC to reach those individuals who don’t know that they are eligible to be registered?
Ms. Fox: Thank you for that question.
That’s something that we have dedicated a lot of time to, because if people are not aware of this change, then it would, obviously, not lead to additional people making the application. In preparation for Bill S-3 and as we tabled it, the department received $40 million to increase our capacity to be responsive to the registrations that would come in.
To your question specifically about communications and engagement, we dedicated some funding, $5.5 million, to do some outreach and push out these significant changes that were coming into force. However, we knew that government was not best placed to do that engagement. Therefore, we used public communications materials, such as videos and infographics, to illustrate the changes in Bill S-3 and the impacts it could have on individuals. We shared that information with 28,000 organizations across the country, including a thousand women-centred organizations. We worked with over 600 First Nations to bring the changes to their attention. Then, of course, we worked closely with the AFN and NWAC, as well as the Feminist Alliance in order to really try to advance the work.
More work needs to be done. It can’t just be exclusive to ISC. We are having conversations with colleagues at Canada Revenue Agency and at Employment and Social Development Canada. They have lines to communities when it comes to benefits the governments can offer. We should be utilizing those channels as well as the channels we have been using to date. The effort needs to continue.
Having spent a large part of my career in communications, I suspect that the COVID pandemic had an impact on being able to get through what was a difficult time for the country. However, our efforts and our dedication will remain. If there are other ways these organizations can bring ideas for reaching people to our attention, whether it’s through social media channels or direct engagement, we want to work with our partners to get this right. We want to get to the people who need to know that these changes have occurred and that more changes are coming. Ongoing communication will be very important.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to slip in to ask a quick question. Ms. Fox, is ISC officially saying that the 2017 estimate of women and their descendants newly entitled to status was wrong? Is it now adopting a new estimate?
Ms. Fox: We are using the estimates. Again, we use the data that is available to us, the most recent data. The latest census could shift the numbers again in the context of more collection from Statistics Canada. I don’t want to say that one thing is wrong and we’re adopting a new measure. We’re going to continue to work with our partners in order to get the right data. If that data shifts because more data sources are available, then we will remain nimble to be responsive to that. The bottom line is that we will equip ourselves to be nimble enough to be able to respond should there be a surge in registration or a surge in demand in one particular year or another. I don’t want to be that categoric because I think we have got to be flexible enough to be able to responsive to the information that is shared.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Ms. Fox, for appearing.
As I hear you speaking, it reminds me of an area — I haven’t worked in this particular area that much but I have in others — where, often, there’s a passive government response. We pass a piece of legislation, and the expectation is all those impacted would somehow magically know about it. I know you have reached out, but it strikes me that the process has not necessarily been a public process.
Could you, please, provide copies for us of your analysis of the registration process and what efforts have been taken to address and eliminate delays? You mentioned some of the folks you reached out to. Could you please provide the committee in writing with the plan that was put in place to implement Bill S-3 and the methodical way in which you have done that? Could you also include how it conforms with the Calls for Justice and the plan laid out by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls? There has been mention of the complexity of the application process. How does that impact applications for registration? How have you analyzed those? What assumptions underlie your process? We have already talked about the fact that the assumptions that underlie the difference in numbers seem to be entitlement versus projected registrations based on the past, prior to Bill S-3 passing. Also, could you provide how the population projections for the different Indigenous populations inform your policy and programming? How do they inform your negotiation of funding formulas with First Nations? Could you provide any information you have about additional budget measures or budget allocations that have been requested by your department from the Department of Finance, as well as the policy? What are the implications in terms of policy planning, program design and budget allocations if you use the low-growth scenario suggested by StatCan versus the high-growth scenario? If you could provide all that have in writing, that would be incredibly helpful. Thank you.
The Chair: I should add that if you can provide it by Monday, that would be greatly appreciated. We’re on a very tight timeline.
Ms. Fox: Okay. Do you want me to try to address some of this now? I wasn’t sure if it was all in writing.
The Chair: Sure.
Ms. Fox: There are lots of questions there.
I’ll start with the analysis process. The department continuously works on how we design our programs, services and policy to respond to the needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Depending on the program or service, then obviously we work closely with our partners in terms of having the right data to project. You’re absolutely right. It’s an integral part of keeping program integrity to ensure that you have enough resources, people and programs to sustain. Whether it’s through education, or Jordan’s principle, or S-3 in particular, I think that we do have an analysis of our target populations depending on the initiative.
Your question around the program elements of this is also linked to budget allocations. I’ll give an example a bit outside of Bill S-3 because I think your question is broader than that. If we look at finance allocation for school infrastructure, education infrastructure, we can’t just take into consideration a population of a community as it stands now. As we know, Indigenous communities are the youngest populations in Canada. I was talking to the Cross Lake chief just the other day who told me that they have 300 births a year. When we plan for infrastructure and education, that is something we have to take into account regarding needs down the road. I have encountered situations with a brand new school in Pikangikum in 2018. I went there a couple of years ago. The population has grown significantly, and the school does not fit the children.
Senator Pate: I’m sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Fox, but we are trying to get as much data as possible. In addition to what we have already asked to have in writing, are you using the data to manage the capacity to fulfill these requests rather than setting benchmarks for how to measure success and registration?
Ms. Fox: We’re using the data in order to increase capacity. However we increase capacity, we have a new Quebec processing plant to do more registration and processes. We have 50 more FTEs, so we are using a high scenario of projection.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much. I appreciate that you’ll send all of that in writing so we can see how you’re doing that and see the analysis that you’re using to accomplish those objectives. We appreciate that. Thank you.
Ms. Fox: Okay.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, Ms. Fox, for the presentation.
I would like to flag this request. A number of the items that you have mentioned, such as education and health, are provincial and territorial responsibilities. While Canada has responsibility for First Nations and Indigenous people, the provinces and territories have these other responsibilities.
My question, in particular, relates to health and health care. The health care systems in the provinces and territories keep excellent track of people and have excellent records. In terms of increasing your ability to share information and to encourage registration under these provisions, has there been any connection with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and the bureau of statistics in each of these provinces and territories? Rather than take up time now, you could respond in writing with what initiatives have taken place and how recently. I think that would assist the committee.
Senator Loffreda: There were many good inquiries and a long list of requests have already been made. Is there a targeted time to correct these delays? What additional resources are needed? Why so many delays? We see delays all over, for example at airports and so on. The National Finance Committee is studying the Estimates. I feel that adequate funding is definitely given to each department. I see that in the numbers I have in front of me. Is it a question of additional resources? Additional funds? The only thing that is missing in the long list of questions and inquiries is a time frame. When will all these delays be corrected?
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for the questions.
To quickly respond to the previous question, there has been provincial and territorial outreach. We’ll include that in a written response.
Why does it take so long to be registered? As part of the registration process, there needs to be an established direct connection to an ancestor who is either registered or entitled to be registered. In each individual case, oftentimes there are complexities. Right now, the department’s goal is a six-month time frame. Many of those are processed before that time frame, but at the maximum it’s a six-month time frame. Did we achieve that? In 80% of our situations, we are achieving and meeting our service standards. Why do we not always meet our service standard? There will be processes where sometimes there is significant missing documentation or a complexity of a case that requires more time. Both for the application and the registration process, as well as any type of appeals or process that take place, our goal is six months.
We had a backlog. I think all of you have heard about that backlog. We have worked through the backlog. It’s one of the things that I hear most about when I go to communities, namely, the frustration with the system. I think these enhancements and moving towards a more modern approach, with additional funding and processing centres, more work with partners, transformation by having communities be part of this process with us, take on part of those responsibilities, are all areas that will significantly reduce the wait times.
The Chair: I have a question for you, Ms. Fox. What is the department’s performance objectives, and how is the department measuring progress related to registration?
Ms. Fox: Thank you for the question.
Our performance is measured in different ways. As I just noted in my response, we try to get through an application in a six-month time frame and even sooner. That’s part of the metrics that we pull forward. We also look at and track exactly how many projected applications there are and how many of them actually have come in. Of those, how many are fully completed? How many are under way? We have those kinds of more specific metrics. Then we have targets, results and outcomes that we’re seeking.
One of the target outcomes is around transformation. What are we doing around transformation? That’s about empowering Indigenous communities to take on some of this function of the registration process. Right now, in some of our First Nations communities, they actually have access to the registration system to be able to register individuals themselves. We have — I don’t even want to say pilot — 67 First Nations in Alberta, in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada that have taken on this additional administrative responsibility that we don’t do anymore. That’s part of our metric. How many can we increase from year to year as we work towards transformation?
Other areas in which we work on specific targets are around priority processing based on age when it comes to Bill S-3. We made a priority, a result and an outcome around the 75-plus category, then we’re working towards our 65-plus and we have specific time frames in which we want to work.
The other broader outcome is when you think about how we’re trying to make changes. Bill S-3 is part of that.
There needs to be more; there’s no doubt. We have an abeyance agreement, I think as you all know, from the Nicholas agreement that was signed in January and announced by the minister in March. Part of that is about the remaining inequity and the work that the department has to do on what can we do right away to deal with the enfranchisement issue, and then what are some of the outstanding inequities that will continue to exist that we want to work with partners to correct. All of those things are measured, and we continuously try to look at how can we improve that performance, and what is the gap to getting the result that we want. Is it people? Is it technology? Is it awareness? Actually identifying the source of the gap and the problem allows us to then pivot and address it. We know there is a lot more work to be done. I want to be clear that we do not think that this process at this stage works for every individual, and I think we need to recognize that and be, as an organization, working with our partners to address it.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Ms. Fox.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Fox, for mentioning the enfranchisement issue and your government’s commitment to deal with that.
The other inequality that remains, of course, is the second generation cut-off, and I was quite interested when I heard the testimony from the Statistics Canada people that they mentioned that one of the factors they take into account was the registration and the second generation cut-off. I assume, then, that if there were an amendment passed through the Indian Act to eliminate section 6(2), to eliminate the second generation cut-off, then obviously it would affect the projections. It would increase the number of First Nations being registered. We have a timetable now on the enfranchisements. Do we have a timetable in dealing with the second generation cut-off?
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for the question.
It absolutely does impact the projections. Obviously, we’ll keep working at this, but the numbers that I have seen is, at minimum, 250,000, if you actually address that. It will substantively impact the registration process and, of course, programs and services that are offered.
In terms of the plan for the second generation cut-off — and I would say there are a few more; cross-border issues would be another — I think the department, through the Nicholas case, has committed to addressing enfranchisement as well as working through some of the other lingering provisions that, perhaps, we could do right away. Then our goal would be to launch a consultation process to work with our partners to find solutions for broader reforms, and that would include second generation cut-off. Our goal is to start that consultation process as quickly as possible and move forward on what we need to do to address the Nicholas abeyance agreement and, obviously, move forward on that, given our commitments, but also recognizing that there is the broader engagement. We do know, and we want to be clear, that we want to co-develop further changes that will be required.
I don’t want to pretend. We do have a lot of partners who have flagged very specifically what the issues are and what changes are required. As we work through them, we want to make sure that it is actually part of the consultation process to change the legislation going forward. I would say the government will likely be announcing something shortly around the time frame specifically, but I would say we have a huge appetite to do this work right away.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, madam deputy.
Senator Pate: Ms. Fox, just picking up on that last question from Senator Christmas, could you please share with us what the government does plan to introduce in terms of legislation to correct the discrimination against women and their children who were involuntarily enfranchised, to correct the sex discrimination found by the CEDAW committee in the Matson case, to remove the section 10 bar to compensation, to repeal section 6(2), as you have already been requested, and to give First Nations women and men alike the right as sole parents to transmit status to their children?
Ms. Fox: I think as part of the government’s commitment, they will move forward as per what Minister Hajdu announced in March to address enfranchisement. That obviously has a time-sensitive nature to it in light of the abeyance agreement. I think that the government will move forward on addressing some lingering discrimination caused by the provision itself.
In terms of the broader issues — section 10, second generation cut-off, scrip, cross-border — I think these are all issues that will fall into that second tranche of the consultation process to make sure that we are working with partners and that government is not going at that alone.
Senator Pate: So we are not likely to see those amendments in the next legislative plan, but they are something, perhaps, we could be recommending as a committee?
Ms. Fox: I think that the government will announce exactly the details of its amendments, but there are some broader issues, like second generation cut-off, that we feel absolutely needs to be co-developed with partners.
The Chair: Are there further questions of Ms. Fox? I see no hands raised. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Ms. Fox, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Gordon for joining us today.
We will suspend briefly to allow us to continue in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)