THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to discuss the government response to the seventh report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples entitled Make it Stop! Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 27, 2022; and, in camera, 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 begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin First Nation. I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, the best part of Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, Ontario.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, the best part of Treaty 6 territory.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, on International Women’s Day, I want to celebrate the extraordinary women who work in the Senate. I also want to elevate all the Indigenous women across Turtle Island.
Today, we are continuing our discussion on the government response received on February 23 to the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples entitled, Make it stop! Ending the remaining discrimination in Indian registration, which was released in June 2022.
With that, I would like to introduce the witnesses. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have Lori Doran, Director General, and Stuart Hooft, Director of Registration Reform. Thank you both for joining us. I understand that you would like to make some preliminary remarks before we start.
The floor is yours.
Lori Doran, Director General, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you. I don’t have a formal opening statement, but I want to make a couple of opening acknowledgements to build on your introductory comments, chair, to acknowledge that it is International Women’s Day and to specifically acknowledge the leadership, perseverance and dedication of many women who have worked tirelessly to address inequities — namely sex-based inequities — in the Indian Act, and have therefore restored rights to women and their descendants. Many of these women are listed in the government response and some have appeared at this committee, including Dr. Sharon McIvor just yesterday.
Second, I want to thank the committee for their work on the report and for inviting us here today to talk more about it. We are pleased to be here to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Hooft, do you have anything to add before we start?
Stuart Hooft, Director of Registration Reform, Indigenous Services Canada: I think Lori has covered it.
The Chair: Thank you for that. I will remind everyone in the room to keep exchanges brief. I will start with questions of Ms. Doran and Mr. Hooft.
As you know, there are concerns over the processing issues preventing First Nations from getting, renewing and replacing their status cards. The delays are preventing individuals from, among other things, accessing rights and benefits that they are legally entitled to, which is troubling, to say the least. The government response says that approximately 16,000 applications are pending as of December 31, 2022. What steps has the department taken to address this since that date, and when does it anticipate concluding the process of clearing the backlog? In addition, what steps are the department taking now to avoid more backlogs?
Ms. Doran: First, I think it is important to underline the difference between an application for registration under the Indian Act and the application of a status card. The status card is issued after a person is registered under the act. Status cards are typically processed in 8 to 12 weeks when we receive a complete application. There is no current inventory or backlog when it comes to status cards.
On the process to apply for registration under the act, there is a process. We recognize that it can be a burdensome process and a complicated process for some, and more complicated for some applicants than others. That’s in part because there is a requirement to provide evidence of identity and ancestral ties.
So recognizing that, we are taking steps to make the process as easy as possible. We’ve been working on this over the last number of years and continue to invest in processing efficiencies. Some of these efficiencies are reflected in the government response, but I will highlight a couple of them, given the opportunity.
It starts with communication. It is important for us to provide clear, concise communication to potential applicants on what the requirements are, what the process is and how to go about it. We have been working to consolidate information in this regard in a more easy-to-use, user-friendly consolidated format. We’ve done some user experience testing with applicants so that we can learn directly from the potential applicant what would be helpful for them in this regard. We are actively incorporating what we heard from that user experience testing.
The second part to communication, of course, is to make sure that we are reaching people who are entitled to registration and who may not know about it. We are working on that effort. We are using different channels, because we recognize that the people we want to reach may not be regular subscribers to the normal platforms and channels. We are working with child and family service organizations, women’s organizations and other partners to get the message out and to offer, in those spaces, information on how they can go about to apply.
On the application process itself, we are actively working to go from a paper-based application process to a more modern, digital, online application process. This really is the focus of our efforts to date, because it not only will make the application process easier and speed up processing, but it will provide a better client experience. We know that, with a digital application, the error rate is lower. We are more likely to receive complete applications and have those applications processed in a timely fashion.
We currently have, right now, a live online application for the status card, which, to my earlier comment, is the more straightforward application process. We are working to build a fully online application for the actual process of registration under the act as well. In the not-so-distant future, if all goes well, this technology will be available to anyone anywhere and will provide a process and an experience that most citizens currently expect of governments in the services that they access.
I will turn to Mr. Hooft to speak to the inventory and the processing statistics.
Mr. Hooft: Thank you. The first part of the question was related to the status card, so I wanted to touch on some processing statistics for calendar year 2022.
In that time, we processed 82,000 applications, resulting in 70,000 cards being issued — 70,761 precisely. That is on the status card side. Now, in the government response, it was noted that there was an inventory of 16,000 registration applications in the queue as of December 31. As of today, that number is reduced to 13,450.
In the past year, we received 34,152 applications, and we processed 35,481, registering 29,821 individuals. That’s the global perspective of registration. Nationally, about 50% of all applicants are registered in approximately six weeks. That’s when they apply in person at their regional office.
Now, part of the study of this committee was specific to Bill S-3, and in recognition of the importance of addressing those applications in a timely manner, we put dedicated units in place to address those applications. I would like to offer those statistics as of November 3, 2022. Since the coming into force of the legislation on December 22, 2017, we have received 58,224 applications. We have processed 52,556, registering 39,745. We have 1,838 that are in progress, and there are 3,830 still to be reviewed in our queue. We are processing requests received November 3, 2022.
The Chair: Tell me a little more about what you are doing to address the backlog. When I applied for a status card before — the secure status card, as they call it — it took close to three months. Someone applying for a passport takes 10 to 20 days. What are you doing? These cards are critical for our people. They need them for various reasons — tax purposes, whatever the case is. So, specifically, what are you doing to address the 16,000 applications still in the backlog? That’s a fair number.
Ms. Doran: Right. There was a fair amount of numbers just shared. If I can try to compartmentalize it a little bit, there is no backlog on status cards. We are processing status cards in line with our service standard, which is 8 to 12 weeks, so two to three months, and we are processing some cards quicker than that. That’s when we receive a complete application for the status card when somebody is already registered.
That processing time has come down significantly as a result of a number of efficiencies that we built into the process to make the application easier, including the digital application that is now available at some service kiosks. We are often compared to passport services, and there are some challenges with that exact comparison, but we do meet our service standard for the status card 90% of the time when we do receive a complete application.
Now, the status card facilitates access to services, benefits and programs, but it is really the fact that you are registered that is the requisite evidence for a point-of-sale tax exemption, for example. So the status card does facilitate access to those programs and services, but a confirmation of registration should, in and of itself, serve that very purpose.
On the applications for registration, our inventory has gone down from 16,000, thereabouts, to about 13,000. We are processing more applications on a regular basis than those coming in. So the inventory is starting to decrease, which is what we want, and is going in the right direction. With our continued investments in processing efficiencies, we will see this inventory further reduced.
We are currently meeting our service standard for applications most of the time. There are some complex applications that fall outside of that service standard. To my earlier point, some of these complex applications are complex because of the extra evidence that might be required for an applicant, and we very much empathize with situations like this, where an individual, because of a history with child and family services or adoption, has to produce information to allow an assessment of an application. On that side, though, we do invite any evidence and assess any evidence and can apply the balance of probabilities to render a decision as quickly as possible, even in those complex cases.
I don’t know if that answers your question, senator.
The Chair: I’m still concerned with the 13,000 that are outstanding. To me, those are people who need their status cards.
Ms. Doran: Yes. They are people who are awaiting a decision on their applications, but those applications are being considered and evaluated. Decisions are expected on those cases within six months.
Mr. Hooft, did you want to add or clarify?
Mr. Hooft: Specifically, I believe part of the question was around what we are doing to improve the status card process since the committee’s undertaking. We have publicly launched the review with 13 urban partners to assist individuals and share information. Those are different partners across the country, referred to as trusted source partnerships. That’s a mirror of the 600 First Nation partnerships that we actively work with across the country.
In terms of tools, the status card does have a 10-year renewal period. We want people’s experience, either when they apply or renew, to be meaningfully better than it may have been in the past. That’s why we have a photo app to simplify the photo-taking process. We continue to both increase processing speed and make services more available, and that includes by offering training to First Nations registration administrators across the country. Over the past years, we have trained over 1,300 registration administrators, both on Bill S-3 but also on the secure status card process.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses here today. I’m going from my memory of what was said about these applications in the past. I will make a comment and then see if you can help me understand some of this better.
One of the concerns we’ve heard is that there is not enough practical outreach in communities to actually reach the individuals who might be in a place to make an application. We’ve also heard that there is a belief in First Nation communities that there isn’t enough education or information around that access.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that there has been a concern that making something digital or computer-friendly may not be user-friendly for the constituency that is trying to make the application; in fact, it could be a real barrier.
When I look at the numbers you’ve stated about the number of people who have applied and the number who have been successful in their applications, it seems to me that the rejection factor is quite high. It’s around 20% or some number like that. That strikes me as a bit odd.
What are the reasons for the rejections that you are finding? Is that administrative or is it more substantive? How can you cure that? Those are the general areas that I would like to explore. Maybe you have a comment on that.
Ms. Doran: Thank you for the question. I will start with your question around the denial or rejection rate. Mr. Hooft might have the exact number on the rejection or denial rate.
Recognizing that this is a challenging process for some individuals, we make every outreach possible with an applicant to secure the information that is required to complete the processing of an application. We often go back and forth with applicants and we try to provide as much information and support as possible. We even take on some of the research ourselves, with our own genealogical and archival research team. We work with the applicant and keep that application open. Oftentimes we don’t deny an application; it is considered dormant until we get the information required to make a decision.
There are those for whom there is a denial or rejection based on the lack of information to substantiate a registration decision, but the goal of our outreach and efforts with clients is to work with them, knowing that they are applying for a reason. They are applying because they feel that they are entitled, and we want to work with them to see this process through in a compassionate and helpful way.
Senator Arnot: Maybe you can help me with this as well. This was raised by Sharon McIvor and Shelagh Day in past testimonies. It seems that the application process surprised some people. For instance, First Nations are surprised that there isn’t a much higher number of people applying, whereas the department — what was your expectation? Is that an accurate assessment? Why is there a disconnect?
Ms. Doran: This speaks to demographic projections. With Bill S-3, a number of demographic projections were offered and a range of numbers were put forward. The projections were different because different variables and assumptions were used in some of those models, and these were done by third parties. Some have identified a global number and some have made a projection of uptake over time. There is a reference in the government response to projections forecasted all the way to 2041. That takes into account individuals who may not even be born yet who would be entitled under the provisions of the act as amended. Those projections are helpful for us to plan our processing capacity but also to plan for impacts on programs and services.
There is another component to demographic projections as it relates to registration, and that is that registration is a voluntary activity. People may be entitled and choose not to apply. It could be that people would apply if they knew they were potentially entitled. That is why we have made great efforts in outreach to those who may be entitled and not be aware, and to offer supports and guidance on how to go about applying for registration. Obviously, that is a variable that needs to be taken into account.
Projections are updated over time. In 2022, updated projections were done by Statistics Canada — not on our direction but on their own account — that took into consideration some updated census figures. They came with updated and maybe more precise projections. The projections that were presented by Statistics Canada — and I know they came to the committee in the spring — are actually more in line with what we are seeing currently in terms of actual applications submitted.
We don’t manage this process based on projections. It is an important factor for us to consider. We really have our eye on processing those applications that come in, that are in front of us for processing, in as efficient a manner as possible.
I don’t know if that helps. We don’t know yet if we’ve reached those who are entitled, but we continue to try to work with partners and different groups who might reach this audience.
Mr. Hooft: Yes. We heard testimony from witnesses appearing yesterday that we should use the Clatworthy analysis to measure the effect of Bill S-3. I wanted to reiterate that that’s what the government did; it accepted the analysis by Stewart Clatworthy for Bill S-3. That analysis spoke to the overall effect of the legislation — 270,000 to 450,000 individuals — but that did not prescribe a timeline. It did not prescribe year-by-year breakdowns. We’ve worked in partnership with the demographic simulation team, who appeared here as witnesses previously, to come up with refined estimates using their demographic projection model. If we look at their estimate for the end of 2022, we should have registered 33,530 people as a result of Bill S-3, and we have done that. Their estimate for the end of 2023 would be 48,674, and we are on track to do that.
This effect, again, of Bill S-3 is very meaningful and will continue to be felt for generations to come.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you for all of this information. I wasn’t on the committee when the demographics people were here, so this is all kind of new, and it’s really interesting.
My question is about something that you have touched on a little bit. I think a digital kiosk is a great idea for my grandkids, for example. My husband is a treaty Indian, my son is a treaty Indian, and when he went to register his kids, it was easy. He had everything there. A kiosk makes sense. But I believe that, for many people, the registration to their band or to get their status card is bound up with a lot of historic trauma. The stories are so painful. Whatever the reason they are not a part of their community, it is part of a larger trauma story — a trauma story of their family, of their community, and it could be their own trauma story of their experiences in foster care, adoptive care or whatever. In those cases, I don’t know that a digital platform makes any sense at all.
When you said that you had trusted-source partnerships, my question is: Who are these trusted-source partnerships with? Which organizations? In my mind, the Indigenous court services workers across the country might be a very good organization to do that because they are dealing with people who are facing the justice system, which is a traumatic experience anyway, and they are often helping people fill out legal aid forms or whatever. It’s kind of in their wheelhouse. So who are the trusted-source partners? Are they trained and are your people trained in historic trauma-informed service delivery? Those are my questions.
Ms. Doran: Thank you for the question. These partnerships, they are intended to do what I think you are suggesting — to bring the application process closer to home, where people feel comfortable and have a culturally appropriate, respectful, secure experience.
We are currently working with 13 organizations across the country. These are organizations where our clients or this population would go to access other services, so, again, it provides more of a wraparound approach to meet people where they already receive services and feel comfortable.
Of course, there is training provided to these organizations so that they can assist people essentially to navigate the application process.
We also consider the community-based registration administrators who are in most communities. We work to support them in working with members of their communities in the application process, whether it is for registration or for the card. We do offer training and supports and tools.
On the matter of digital maybe not being appropriate for all, I take your point 100%. It’s an option. We want to offer options to people so that those who choose to apply using an online application can do so in 2023, but those who feel more comfortable working through this process in an in-person, supportive environment will continue to have that option. I would answer your question in that way.
All ISC —Indigenous Services Canada — staff who work in this field have mandatory cultural competency training. Because employees working in this organization deal directly with clients, we go above and beyond to make sure that staff who are interacting directly with clients are trained and have the tools to work with applicants in a trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, client-focused and human-centred approach.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: You talked a bit about evidence. I agree that evidence has to be provided. The burden of evidence, though, is that oftentimes it doesn’t exist, and that’s not the fault of the person in front of you. The churches kept records, but the churches burned down. Children’s services are notorious for being very poor record keepers when it comes to Indigenous children.
I heard you say something about the balance of probabilities. I am very curious. What does that mean? How do you manage this precarious situation with evidence?
Ms. Doran: Thank you for that question. It is a reality that sometimes the evidence just doesn’t exist for all the reasons you’ve just explained. We do accept any evidence. It could be clippings, affidavits, census information. We can go on with some of the examples. We gather all of that. The Indian Registrar, who is ultimately the person responsible for decisions on registration, is involved in applying a balance of probabilities in those cases so that the evidence is weighted toward the person being entitled versus not entitled.
Senator Martin: I, too, had missed the study. I’m new to this file, but, just listening to the questions before me and the answers that you’ve given, I wanted to ask a few questions that I think are in line with what others have already asked.
You have a digital platform, and it could be very well designed, but it may not reach those hard-to-reach audiences. I was really curious about this. You are working with your trusted partners; you say 13 across the country. That doesn’t seem like a lot. What about the very hard-to-reach audiences, like people 65 years old and older, people in urban centres and very remote places, and even those who may not be aware of their status? I was just curious what your outreach efforts look like. How do you measure the success of that outreach?
Ms. Doran: Thank you for the question. Regarding the digital platform, to maybe put a finer point, we currently have a digital platform to apply for the status card. We are working to evolve the platform to accept applications for registration. We’re not quite there yet, but, yes, point taken: We need to build this platform, this online application, with the user in mind and take into account things like connectivity and the tools, the mobile devices, to engage with the technology. We’re taking all of those factors into consideration, and we will still offer a paper-based, in-person service should a client prefer that approach.
You are correct; 13 is not a lot. We aim to expand that number. We are testing the model and learning about the model, and we are wanting to make sure that it does what we want it to do before we expand it too far. All signs are that it’s working very well and that the service offerings could be expanded in these trusted-source partnerships over time as well.
The outreach is key. I’ve made a couple of comments already about some efforts underway to reach that hard-to-reach audience and people who may not know that they are potentially entitled to registration. We are trying to work with new partners, like women’s organizations and child and family services organizations. We have created tailored messaging to the audience 65 years and older. We’re trying different things. We’re evaluating, to the degree we can, the impact of these outreach efforts on applications coming into our office to see if we can identify a particular outreach effort that has resulted in an increase in applications received, for example. The user experience testing that I made reference to is also helping us better design communication and outreach products, messages, guides, videos, et cetera.
Mr. Hooft: Specifically, in response to your question, we did reach out to over 1,000 women’s organizations to share messaging around Bill S-3. We’ve also used a third-party service provider to reach out to 28,000 different individuals and organizations using the Indigenous Link service.
Expanding partnerships is the full intention. We have more partners coming on board in the new fiscal year and have already secured proposals to that effect. Expanding to cover legal services and other hard-to-reach populations is one of the key priorities. Whether it’s legal aid or otherwise, we understand that there can be difficult situations, and the more support that can be provided to individuals — not just digitally, but in person, and not just generally but specific — will be well received and result in increased applications, which is what we want to see ultimately.
Senator Martin: It says the government response explains that Indigenous Services Canada will continue to “. . . explore the translation of information on entitlement to registration into some Indigenous languages . . . .”
Does your outreach include providing information in different Indigenous languages, and are people aware of that? I’m curious how that specific outreach happens.
Ms. Doran: It was a recommendation of this committee to consider the translation of our material into various Indigenous languages. We’re taking that recommendation seriously and will explore, with resourcing considerations, what we can do to provide information in Indigenous languages.
We haven’t produced many resources in Indigenous languages to date. In some instances, the community-based registration administrators are able to work with members of their community in their own language, which is very helpful and well accepted and much appreciated. This is an area that we will continue to —
Senator Martin: It’s an exploratory stage.
Ms. Doran: — to explore, again, taking into account user feedback and other advice that we might receive along the way.
The Chair: I’m wondering if you can tell me if the department is considering any initiatives to apologize or to provide reparations or to compensate those who lost their status through gender discrimination, and if not, why not?
Ms. Doran: Thank you for the question. The response acknowledges the historic wrongs and the harms of decades of sex-based inequities and the legacy impact on women and their descendants. The impacts of this are quite expansive in that women were denied rights and benefits and services, including health benefits, for example, and also were often alienated from community and culture. This is very much acknowledged. Our efforts are focused on moving quickly to find solutions to the remaining inequities that exist in order to ensure that others for whom rights need to be restored are able to receive those rights and benefits in a timely manner. That’s where we’re focused: on working quickly, through consultation, on solutions to remaining inequities.
The Chair: Just to be clear, what I’m hearing is there won’t be an apology or any compensation from the department.
Ms. Doran: The response to the report does not commit to apology or compensation. The report speaks to our acknowledgement of the historic wrongs and harms and our efforts to work quickly to address, in a concrete way, those remaining inequities.
Mr. Hooft: I would also like to acknowledge that the report should make mention of the significant contribution of Stéphane Descheneaux and Susan and Tammy Yantha for their impact on Bill S-3, as well as Dr. Gehl, who I believe is referenced in the response.
Going back to the previous question, there is a large population of people who have been impacted by these practices or policies or legislation over time, and that’s a shared challenge, not just for the government, but with partners. It’s been reiterated from advocates and First Nation allies that trying to reach that population that has been disconnected from their community is difficult. There is an acknowledgement that that’s where the focus needs to continue to be.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much and welcome to our guests. I was actually here for the study of Bill S-3 way back, but have not been here. I’m sitting in for Senator Sorensen.
I want to go back to the outreach efforts because I’m trying to clarify the specific problems you have. Are you looking at the patterns that are coming in? What similarities would there be in those that you haven’t received yet?
Ms. Doran: Just to clarify, if I may, are you asking how we are tracking the efficacy of our outreach efforts?
Senator Boniface: For instance, you say the “harder-to-reach audiences,” and then I see “urban,” “rural,” “remote” and “65 and older.” Would that tell me that with the applications you have, the majority of those applicants would be under 65? I’m looking to see whether you’ve analyzed it in that way.
Ms. Doran: For those newly entitled under Bill S-3, because it is restoring entitlement to registration going back many decades in some cases, there are older people applying, and we have adopted a policy, in fact, for priority processing of applications from those who are 65 years and older because we recognize that they may have been waiting a lifetime, and we don’t want to delay the processing of their file.
We know as well, based on those demographic projections, that for some of the same reasons, the population newly entitled under Bill S-3 would largely reside in urban places because they had lost, in some instances, connection to their community. That’s in part why we are focusing on urban settings, and that’s where our trusted-source partnerships largely are based — and, also, not just women, but older applicants.
We are looking to monitor whether those efforts are reaching that audience and course correcting as we go.
That said, we are receiving applications in line with what the more updated demographic projections have indicated we ought to receive, so we can say with some certainty that we are reaching that population because we’re seeing applications coming in a way that was anticipated. That is one measure for which we have a guidepost.
Mr. Hooft: The difficult-to-reach population is really that original loss of status because that could be up to 150 years ago. What we observe is this is truly familial experience. Once one person within a family line is registered, then you see descendants, relatives, et cetera applying. That is another reason why the effect happens over time. It’s not one-to-one — one application for one. You have to think about it generationally, along family lines. It could be one source ancestor if you want and then many descendants that subsequently apply. That would be the first observation.
In terms of difficulty, it really is to not only know of that ancestor, but to be able to demonstrate through evidence that there’s a connection between yourself and that ancestor. As we go back in time, the evidence can sometimes be difficult to obtain. The department does have records available either through family members’ applications but also census records and treaty records that may not be readily available to individuals and we do try to supplement that information when someone applies.
In terms of when we look at registrations globally, the average age of registration right now is about five years old. The vast majority of people registered on an annual basis are newborns, babies and children. But, of course, that will look slightly different for the Bill S-3 population because people lost status and their descendants, so the average age of registration has also increased in recent years.
Senator Boniface: In reference to the 13,000 that the chair raised, you refer it to as an inventory. Just so I’m clear, is it more like a queue, and people are in the queue, and so some of those 13,000 could be applications that arrived yesterday and some have been there longer? Is that correct?
Ms. Doran: Yes. I’ll let Mr. Hooft speak to the inventory. I believe the oldest record is six months.
Mr. Hooft: We process applications based on the date received and that’s whether it’s complete or incomplete. On average, nationally, we process 3,000 requests a month. When we look at an inventory of approximately 13,500 people, that’s four and a half months’ worth of inventory. We’re continuing to get applications every day, so the inventory is not going to zero, but we hope to be through it in a timely manner. Not everyone’s situation is equal. That’s why we say our target is to process 80% of cases within a six-month service standard. We process based on the date received. That’s the order in which things are done.
Ms. Doran: About 50% of applications are straightforward, meaning they’re a child of a parent who is already registered. Those are done within weeks. So, 50% of our applications are situations like that. There are those more complex applications that take more time. But, yes, a queue is a good way to describe it because it’s a constant scenario where we process as we receive, because there’s no deadline. There’s no deadline on which to apply. It’s an ever-rolling process.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My question is about the expiry of status cards. For the people who administer status cards, it would make sense to have them expire. It’s good for data collection, especially the new cards that have more in them.
From the perspective of Indigenous people, however — the people in my life who generally just don’t trust the government — the issue of trust exists and it seems to them the fact that the cards now expire is a way of re-evaluating whether that person should have their status card every five years and that, when it comes to a status card renewal, the government could make a decision that they don’t have a status card anymore. I don’t believe that to be true as a senator sitting here, but I do know there is a real trust issue between Indigenous people and the government.
I think the decision to make status cards expire was not thinking from the client perspective. It was the thinking from the perspective of whoever administers the cards.
Why did you make that decision? Is there still an opportunity to rethink the decision? My husband would be really disappointed if I didn’t say that he believes he doesn’t expire as an Indian.
Ms. Doran: And I would agree with your husband. Status never expires. Once you are registered under Indian Act, it is in perpetuity. It doesn’t expire. It doesn’t need to be renewed. It exists for a person’s lifespan.
But the status card that is available to people, it’s a choice. It’s available to people who are registered and, to my earlier comment, it does facilitate access to programs and services, although it’s not required.
It has a renewal date because it also serves as an official federal identity document. It is used by Canada Border Services Agency to cross the U.S.-Canada land border, to open a bank account and to board an airplane. It’s used as official federal ID. Because of that, there is a requirement for periodic renewal. It’s a policy of government.
To your earlier point, we recognize that it can be a hassle, at minimum, and a bit of a traumatizing experience also for some individuals who have to interact with government to renew this card.
We’ve taken measures to try to make this as easy as possible while still having it serve as an official federal ID that many people value and hold as a sole piece of identification.
We’ve expanded the renewal period from 5 to 10 years and we have made the application process easier. I made reference to the digital tool that’s available now. We have also launched and made available a mobile photo app. That’s why the renewal requirement is there, because a person’s appearance changes over time and maybe some tombstone information has changed. Maybe their name has changed. It’s at that time the photo can be updated and any information can be updated.
Regarding this photo app, we had heard and we had responded to feedback that it was time-consuming and costly and inconvenient to get a passport-quality photo. So we have this app you can use anywhere that will take that passport-quality photo at no charge. About 126,000 people have taken us up on this option. If you do a rough estimate on what it might cost to go to Walmart for a passport photo, that’s maybe $1.8 million in savings in people’s pockets for not having to go and pay for that photo.
Again, it’s not the only option. People can choose to apply using a paper process or in person.
Mr. Hooft: I would like to add that your status is not reconsidered, for the record. It is not reconsidered at the time that you apply for a status card. It is a useful form of federally issued identification and alternatives do exist. First Nations’ offices still do issue the paper laminate version. We recognize that may be the preferred version, but it’s not an either-or. You can get a paper laminate version while you wait to get the secure certificate of Indian status.
We have seen increased volumes of applications in recent years, and we do plan to launch a simplified renewal process because we are right about at the 10-year mark since the secure certificate of Indian status was launched. We’re seeing a greater number of renewals so we will be launching a simplified renewal process to support individuals in that effort.
The Chair: The government response mentions publishing an annual report on registration that could include information such as total number of received applications per registration per year and the total number of registration decisions protested per year, among other matters.
How will the department determine what information will be included in the annual report on registration? Will it remain the same each year to allow for comparability?
Ms. Doran: Thank you. This was a recommendation to produce an annual report in the spirit of transparency and accountability, and we accept the recommendation. We are working to produce what will be an annual report. We hope to capture as much information in this report as possible around applications received and the basic processing statistics, but also to capture other related activities and efforts vis-à-vis consultation or engagement on remaining inequities.
We have some system limitations that may not allow us to produce as expansive a report as we might want to produce or that might be expected, but we will be putting our efforts forward to produce a report. We hope to have the core information consistent year over year so that it can serve as a benchmarking-type exercise.
We are planning to engage a group of experts in the development of this report so that we take advice from people who have expertise and an interest in this area to make sure the report will be useful and that will capture, as clearly as possible, key information around registration.
Mr. Hooft: I’ll reiterate what Ms. Doran said. We are certainly open to the content of the report, and we propose to do this in partnership with First Nations, with allies and with advocates. Some of these networks already exist because we have been engaging on the development of Bill C-38 and have regular dialogue, whether it’s through our trusted-source partners and their experience or registration administrators operating in 600 communities across the country.
We want their content as well. We want to include what matters, and some of the individuals who have appeared here as witnesses have made it clear what’s important, and that’s getting a diversity of perspectives. Because it’s not just about numbers; it’s also about the experience of going through the application process. That came through loud and clear in the report.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Doran and Mr. Hooft, for your testimony. We appreciate your taking the time tonight.
(The committee continued in camera.)