THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 16, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met with videoconference this day at 2 p.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples; and the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to start by acknowledging that we are meeting today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I am Brian Francis; I am a Mi’kmaq senator from Epekwitk, which is our word for Prince Edward Island. I have the pleasure to chair this hybrid meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I would like to remind senators and witnesses to keep their microphones muted unless recognized by name. Should any technical challenges arise, please let me or our clerk know. I would also like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed. We can use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee participating in today’s meeting starting with our deputy chair, Senator Christmas, from Nova Scotia. Also with us today are Senator Arnot, from Saskatchewan; Senator Audette, from Quebec; Senator Brazeau, from Quebec; Senator Coyle, from Nova Scotia; Senator Hartling, from New Brunswick; Senator Lovelace Nicholas, from New Brunswick; Senator Pate, from Ontario; and Senator Patterson, from Nunavut, who is the other member of the steering committee.
Today we have an ambitious agenda covering three different topics. In the first half hour, we will start with a study on the federal implementation of former Bill S-3, which dealt with inequities in the provisions of the Indian Act; in the next half hour, we will focus on Bill C-19, the Budget Implementation Act; and in the last half hour, we’ll examine the federal implementation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
We will now begin the first panel on the federal implementation of the former Bill S-3. From Indigenous Services Canada, we have with us today Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister; Paula Hadden-Jokiel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Regional Operations Sector; and Michael Walsh, Senior Director of Registration and Integrated Program Management.
Ms. Fox will provide opening remarks for up to five minutes. We’ll have a short question and answer session. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the raise-hand feature. You will be acknowledged by the clerk or by me.
Since we only have 30 minutes with this panel, I ask senators and witnesses to be succinct. Each round of questions and answers will be three minutes in total. When the three minutes allocated for each question and answer is over, I will intervene; this is my least favourite thing to do, but it will help keep us on time.
If witnesses are unable to answer during the three minutes, I will invite them in advance to provide supplementary responses in writing to the clerk before the end of the week.
Having said all that, I would now like to invite Ms. Fox to begin her opening remarks.
Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, Indigenous Services Canada: Kwe kwe, tansi, unnusakkut, good afternoon. I’m speaking to you today from Treaty 6 territory in Saskatchewan, just outside Muskoday First Nation. Thank you for inviting me to speak before the committee.
Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is determined to redress historic wrongs and advance gender equality and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. We are committed to addressing the injustices and challenges that many First Nations face as it supports broad self-determination, self-governance and self-reliance for all interested First Nations.
We have taken an important step forward along that path with Bill S-3. The legislation responds to long-standing concerns about gender inequality and discrimination raised by First Nations people, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and other key stakeholders.
While much work remains, I will now report on our progress in implementation.
[Translation]
While much work remains, I will now report on our progress in implementing Bill S-3 since the last update.
[English]
Indigenous Services Canada has made significant headway in processing registration applications, in part due to now having dedicated units in Gatineau and Quebec City as well as increased staffing at the Winnipeg processing unit.
The department has invested $15.8 million in human resources, policy changes and modernization to accelerate our processing speeds to ensure timely registration of newly entitled individuals.
Last year at this time, we had processed 17,500 Bill S-3 applications. As of April 2022, the department has more than doubled that number, handling over 37,000 applications.
We have processed or partially processed more than 85% of the applications received. To date, 28,152 individuals have been registered, providing them access to associated rights, benefits and services.
We gave priority to processing applications for older applicants. All applications for individuals over the age of 75 have now been processed, and we are completing the age groups for 65 years and older and are actively processing the remainder of those files.
Furthermore, the department anticipates it will be processing applications within six months — our service standard — by September 2022.
On communications, to make sure people are aware of their potential eligibility for registration, we have allocated $5.4 million to engagement, outreach and monitoring. The department has developed a robust communications package with information on Bill S-3. This includes Q&As, videos and infographics, and it is distributed to communities and partners. In fact, we have worked with Indigenous Link, a partner organization that connects us to over 28,000 unique Indigenous organizations, businesses and other groups across the country.
We have also funded the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women’s Association of Canada to hear from advocates on the implementation. We sought their perspectives on best practices to communicate the legislation among the impacted population.
There is still a lot more work to do in undoing the damaging impacts of the Indian Act’s registration and band membership provisions, so we will need to continue to amend the act until First Nations take full jurisdiction over citizenship. We are committed to co-developing solutions with First Nations partners to address these remaining inequities that deny First Nations peoples their inherent rights.
Proactively righting historic wrongs in cooperation with Indigenous peoples will advance reconciliation and support a renewed relationship between Canada and First Nations.
We want to work with partners. We understand that there is still much work to do, and I thank you, chair and committee members, for your interest in Bill S-3 and your continued work on this file, and I look forward to hearing from all of you today, answering questions and helping inform our way forward.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Before I open the floor to colleagues, I would like to ask the officials one question that will assist our committee with the drafting of the report on this topic.
Could you please outline the process to protest a decision for registration as per section 14.2 of the Indian Act? How long does the registrar take to make a decision under protest? And how many protests are currently awaiting a decision of the registrar, if any?
Ms. Fox: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For some of the more technical elements of your question, I will turn to Michael Walsh to speak to the details. Our goal has always been to process registrations within six months. We have not necessarily met that goal in all cases, and for each adjudication, depending on the situation, it would be difficult to say an exact time frame in which that would occur. However, I will turn it over to Michael to give more specifics on those details.
Michael Walsh, Senior Director of Registration and Integrated Program Management, Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you, deputy, and thank you, chair.
As the deputy said, there are two parts to this particular question. One would be that the individual, once receiving an official decision by the registrar in relation to their application for registration, would have three years to make a protest if they were so inclined. Once a protest has been received, again as the deputy mentioned, six months would be the usual term for the processing of such an application; it depends on what the research documentation would need to be, but six months is the service standard.
I am looking to get the specific answer to the second part of your question as to how many are left waiting the registrar’s decision and hope to get back to you during this session with that number.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much, Deputy Fox, for your comments. It’s about three years ago now that the Ministerial Special Representative Claudette Dumont-Smith had filed a report, and in her report she mentions that the greatest concern raised throughout her process was the second-generation cut-off, and she mentions in her report that in the not-so-distant future some communities will no longer have any registered members.
She had recommended that a separate and more in-depth consultation process begin on this topic of second-generation cut-off. Deputy minister, can you give us an update of where we are in that consultation process as to how soon the second-generation cut-off issue can be dealt with?
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for the question. As you noted, back in August of 2019 the cut-off was removed from the section 6 registration provisions of the Indian Act, and that was, as you know, in order to ensure that there would no longer be differential treatment between the patriarch or matriarch lines. We did have a final report published on Bill S-3 and tabled in December of 2020, but you’re absolutely right that we do need to continue to consult; and in fact, as part of our ongoing communications, as well as the Nicholas v. Canada civil litigation, we have made a commitment as a department to continue to engage. That engagement will, in my view, not start and end in a particular time frame, but through our commitment to a legislative process on the cut-off and on the other inequities that remain, we would work with partners, and we’re starting those discussions now.
The Chair: Thank you. Being mindful of time, before we go to Senator Coyle, I want to remind officials of the deadline of the end of the week for follow-up answers.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Deputy Minister Fox, for being with us today. Building on Senator Christmas’s question regarding the second-generation cut-off, that is one of the inequities that we’re seeing, and there are other inequities and you’ve mentioned them yourself.
You mentioned co-developing measures to deal with the remaining inequities. Could you talk about the timing and process that you plan to follow for dealing with those remaining inequities?
Ms. Fox: Absolutely and thank you. To the chair’s comment around the questions, we are very much aware of the time frame and are working towards completing that. So we will definitely have that to you before the May 20 deadline.
In terms of the continued work on the remaining inequities, we do have an abeyance agreement in the Nicholas civil case, and in that agreement we are committed to seeking a timely legislative solution that will address the discriminatory policy of enfranchisement. We’re looking right now to start collaborating on solutions, and then we would look to a full legislative process required to address them under the act.
We would continue that dialogue but more formally start that work in the coming weeks, given this abeyance agreement and given the importance of doing this work. So I suspect that you will hear more from the government and from the minister in the next few weeks and months around the time frame, but I would say that there is urgency felt within the department and urgency felt from the minister for us to advance this work as quickly as possible, but to make sure that we’re doing this with partners.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: My question is for you, Ms. Fox. Before 1985, children were declared illegitimate if no father signed when they were born and now, since 1985, the father’s name must be revealed. This time, has that requirement — which, in my opinion, is discriminatory, especially toward mothers and women — been removed or is it still included in Bill S-3? If it is, what’s the point of this amendment, if the regulations remain the same? Why have we not changed this? Thank you.
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for your question. I would say that, absolutely, we find that it has been resolved as part of the amendments that have been made. However, there is work to be done on interpretation, communications, so that people are really aware of the changes.
Within the department, we are also trying to find ways to automate some of the changes. For example, we don’t leave it up to the individual to make the changes; if we see in the system that they should have received a certain service, we make the changes automatically. I found that to be an important factor, in that we can start to address the issues directly.
However, we need to do more work collaborating with our partners and enhance communications with communities so that people are aware of the changes and they can avail themselves of the programs and services the department provides.
In our view, changes have been made in the bill, but there is still work to do work in terms of engaging in communications and sharing information, as well as facilitating the process. Again, we note that, at times, a burden still rests on the individual and we are working at the department to try to eliminate that.
[English]
Senator Brazeau: Welcome to all of you. As my colleagues very well know, this issue is something that’s very near and dear to my heart and very personal since 1985. I know the department likes to talk about a lot of the progress it does with respect to status provisions, but let’s be real and honest: The department has always been there to try and limit the number of status Indians in this country, and so I think that we need to set the record straight on some things.
As a matter of fact, you talk about the registration process. It could take between six months up to two years, but how about a gentleman like Mr. Mike Mallette and his son Rocco, whose file I’ve been working on since 2016.
There has been so much back and forth with respect to this particular application. I’m not going to go in depth about this application, but it’s been almost seven years for Mike Mallet and his son Rocco. Having said this, there have been a lot of people who have had problems with their own registration process.
Can I ask the department if they can table with this committee the actual written document that gives the department the authority to decide upon status provisions for First Nations people in Canada? Also, to the department officials, can you share with this committee how many times since 1985 the department has recommended to the minister of Indian Affairs of the day to get out of the business of deciding who gets First Nation status in this country and who does not? Thank you.
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much. I appreciate that some of those details will be submitted after our appearance today, but I think what I would say is that we obviously continue to monitor registration rates and the associated impacts to programs and services. The department is trying to put more resources into being able to process and make decisions and improve our processing times.
I won’t comment on specific cases, but I do know that there is frustration in the system. I hear from people directly — I know our minister does as well — that the current system does not work for them. I will absolutely acknowledge today that there is work to do and improvements to be made.
I do want to indicate, though, that there are some programs and services within the department like Jordan’s Principle, for instance, where a registration is not required to get the service or support. I do recognize that many programs, services and policies do require that registration. There is a lot of work to be done and we will get back to you with some of the more detailed specific questions that you’ve asked us today.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. My question relates to enfranchisement. As you know, Madam Deputy Minister, on March 3, 2022, Minister Hajdu committed to work towards introducing legislation in the House of Commons by summer to make the necessary amendments to the registration provisions. We all know that “by summer” means before Parliament recesses in June, so I want to verify that there is a plan on track to introduce the necessary legislation before we break in June.
Second, will this proposed legislation only focus on the issues in the lawsuit Nicholas v. Canada or will it address multiple inequities in registration? Thank you.
Ms. Fox: Thank you for that. I do want to address your question. As I noted earlier, as part of the Nicholas abeyance agreement that was signed on January 6, 2022, it came into force. Essentially, the Government of Canada — as you noted — did commit to initiate the parliamentary process required to propose the legislative change needed to address enfranchisement-related inequities. We need to seek authorities to bring about the changes, and that’s really with the intention of ensuring that family histories of enfranchisement no longer impact entitlement to registration under the Indian Act.
The minister did commit to that through public comments in early March, and I think we need to initiate the process. However, the actual legislation needs to be co-developed in order for it to have success, and therefore the introduction of such legislation would be informed by the views of our partners. It would not be done simply by the department. So I did want to note that we do absolutely have to move forward on seeking the authorities to move forward on legislation, but it is our intention that the legislation itself would be co-developed.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses. My question is for Deputy Minister Fox as well. When the Feminist Alliance for International Action appeared before us and in a letter they sent to Minister Freeland, they talked about wanting to ensure that your department had adequate resources to ensure that folks in the community could be part of this process. To follow up on the questions of my colleagues, what resources do you still need to ensure that we speed up this process and so that we aren’t leaving folks behind and — as we’ve heard — watching people literally die before they achieve their eligibility? So what financial resources and —
Ms. Fox: Thank you for the question. First, we have invested, at this point, $40 million to support Bill S-3 implementation, and that includes about $5.5 million for engagement and outreach so that impacted populations are informed by the changes to the law. That’s a big part of the activation of a communications strategy.
A lot of my experience in the department is that throughout the COVID months we have used a lot of communications tables to talk about major changes with respect to the pandemic: vaccines, PPE or whatever it might be. We really communicated through elders and Indigenous leaders. It’s about utilizing those communication channels that have been established to be able to build on those and include things like Bill S-3 and using those communications networks to increase our engagement and our outreach.
In terms of your specific question about how many more resources the department needs, I think right now we are using the $40 million at its capacity. As a department, we look at our pressures every year, and we try to address this particular pressure, given the impact it has on individuals. As part of the $40-million investment and as part of the strategy, we are starting with elders and those, as I noted in my opening remarks, above the age of 75. Then we went to 65, and we are prioritizing that registration.
To give a sense to the committee of changes since Bill S-3 in terms of applications that have been processed to completion, that’s 37,438, or 82%. Of those individuals registered by Bill S-3 processing units, there are 28,000. We still have new applications remaining, about 6,500 of those, some of which are partially processed.
The investments that we have put in place are having an impact. We just need to keep doing the work we’re doing to get to the results we need.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Ms. Fox, Ms. Hadden-Jokiel and Mr. Walsh.
We’ll now shift our focus to begin our study on the subject matter of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures, in specific, Division 2 of Part 5, which amends the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, and Division 3 of Part 5, which repeals the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act.
From the Department of Finance, we have Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Taxation Policy and Roch Vézina, Senior Tax Policy Analyst, Indigenous Taxation Policy.
As in the previous half-hour panel, we will ask officials to provide opening remarks of less than five minutes, followed by rounds of questions and answers of three minutes each, at which point I will have to respectfully move to the next senator. Again, if ministers are unable to answer a question in three minutes, I ask them to submit a written response before Friday.
I remind colleagues that officials from the Department of Finance will only be able to speak to matters under Divisions 2 and 3 which fall under their areas of responsibility. Given the integrated nature of some of the measures, some questions may be better addressed by officials from Indigenous Services Canada, who are scheduled to appear on May 30. You may wish to hold off on questions for them until then.
Without further delay, I will invite Mr. Almond to begin his opening remarks.
Brent Almond, Director, Indigenous Taxation Policy, Department of Finance: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, senators for the opportunity to discuss Divisions 2 and 3 of the budget implementation act this afternoon.
I’ll begin with Division 2, subsection 177, related to amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. That act, which is the federal settlement legislation that implemented and brought into effect the Nisga’a self-government treaty, currently only provides force of law to specific provisions of a related side agreement called the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement, rather than the entirety of that side agreement.
I would like to note that, in general terms, the side agreement I’m referring to is called a tax treatment agreement. In modern treaties post-Nisga’a, it was recognized that amendments and additions to such side agreements might occur, so comparable federal settlement legislation provided force of law to the entire tax treatment agreement in order to accommodate any potential future amendments and additional measures. This measure would therefore amend the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act to provide force of law to all provisions in that side agreement, namely the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement, enabling any future potential tax-related amendments to the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement to have the full force of law and effect. Thank you.
The Chair: We will now move to questions and answers.
Senator Christmas: I would like to thank the officials for appearing before the committee this afternoon. I have two related questions for Mr. Almond. First, why is the federal government proposing amendments to the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act some 20 years after it took effect? Second, why is the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement not a treaty or land claims agreement within the definitions of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act?
Mr. Almond: Thank you very much for your question. Mr. Chair, I would like to respond to the first question.
With respect to the tax treatment agreement I’m referring to with the Nisga’a Nation, that agreement was and is intended to be an agreement capable of being modified by the parties on a willing and agreed-upon basis to accommodate potential future adjustments to tax measures that may not have been foreseen at the time of the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act and the treaty being ratified and implemented in 2000.
Contained in the tax treatment agreement and similar tax treatment agreements with other self-governing, Indigenous groups in Canada, are technical treatment aspects related to, for instance, the tax treatment of the Indigenous government itself for Goods and Services Tax purposes, provincial sales tax purposes and under the federal Income Tax Act.
As well, included in the tax treatment agreement are measures, again, of a technical nature specific to the tax treatment related to individuals. In this particular example, the Nisga’a Nation, British Columbia and the Government of Canada were in full agreement with respect to amending the tax treatment agreement to provide a specific continued tax exemption for Nisga’a citizens who earned registered pension plan income based on employment income that was itself tax exempt.
In other words, this is a relieving measure specific to continue tax-exempt treatment for registered pension plan income for Nisga’a beneficiaries and Nisga’a citizens similar to the tax-exempt treatment in respect of that income under and pursuant to the Indian Act and section 87 of the Indian Act.
Senator Christmas: In my second question, I asked why the tax agreement was not considered a treaty or a land claims agreement under sections 25 and 35.
Mr. Almond: I would be pleased to answer that question. The tax treatment agreement is not considered a treaty under section 35 of the Constitution Act primarily because that agreement is intended to be amended based on technical tax-related aspects that the parties may agree on from time to time.
With respect to the provisions in that agreement, the agreement itself remains evergreen, has a minimum term and otherwise continues if the parties so choose. In this case, Nisga’a has chosen to continue this agreement, and it was viewed as not necessary to provide constitutional status for this side agreement given the nature of the technical measures related to taxation that are included in that.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Almond.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Almond. I’m trying to concretely understand the impact of this. You did get at some of the essence of impact in your response to Senator Christmas’s questions.
Could you give us a sense of the effect this would have on the Nisga’a nation and, in particular, on the citizens who are members of the Nisga’a nation? Can you give us somewhat of a flavour of the impact or the effect of this on them and how many people this will affect? If you could give us that detail, it would be good to understand it better.
Mr. Almond: The provision that I spoke to as a practical, concrete example of one of the relieving tax measures being advanced through amendments ultimately to the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement is an amendment that is relieving in nature. It’s very specific in the sense that it relates to registered pension plan income received by Nisga’a citizens.
Concerning our understanding of the number of individuals impacted, we don’t have absolutely certain data, but, in my view, the number would be in the approximate range of up to several hundred individuals that are Nisga’a members and Nisga’a citizens who have certainty that their registered pension plan income, when it’s received, is exempt from tax. That is, to the extent that employment income on which it was based was itself exempt from tax as a result of section 87, the tax exemption under the Indian Act prior to the time when Nisga’a was self-governing with the implementation of federal legislation.
With respect to the Nisga’a nation itself as a government, it has its own tax systems in place with respect to all residents of Nisga’a settlement lands and, in particular, the Nisga’a communities on those settlement lands. As a result, the Nisga’a nation itself, while it generates important revenues through its tax system of personal income tax with respect to all residents, including citizens of its settlement lands, ultimately would see a slight reduction in their tax revenue generation through income taxes. I should say they would not see the expected slight increase in tax revenues with respect to taxes levied on its citizens as a result of this measure.
The Nisga’a nation, the Province of British Columbia and the federal government, through the Minister of Finance, are supportive of these amendments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Almond.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I’m still new to the Senate, but it’s nothing new for me to hear the government talking over and over again about nation-to-nation relations and all things reconciliation.
From my point of view, I may be missing something because I don’t understand how one government can speak for another government. I don’t see a document in which the Nisga’a Nation says they agree to this. Would it be possible to have that confirmed? Thank you.
Mr. Almond: Thank you for the question. Mr. Chair, I’d like to turn the floor over to my colleague Roch Vézina.
Roch Vézina, Senior Tax Policy Analyst, Indigenous Taxation Policy Section, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you, Mr. Almond.
So, this is a more enabling measure, which would recognize the agreement and future amendments by all three parties, more or less on the federal side, to give it full force and effect. The measure itself is rather enabling, which would allow us to make an amendment or future amendments relating to the taxation agreement after the fact, should the parties agree.
Based on federal mandates, we proposed amendments that we also proposed to the other self-governing first nations with similar agreements. However, their legislation, which implements the treaty as well as the taxation agreement, gives full force of law to the entire taxation agreement, whereas the Nisga’a Nation Taxation Agreement legislation only gave force of law to certain sections, and they are the only sections that have force of law at this time. Therefore, the measure amends the implementing legislation to give the entire agreement force of law and allow us to amend the agreement thereafter, should all three parties agree.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vézina.
Senator Hartling: Thank you to the witnesses for coming and sharing this with us.
This is a little hard to wrap your head around, especially around taxation. I’m thinking of a couple of things. We know a lot of agreements that have been signed with First Nations have not been in their best interests. I want to make sure I’m understanding this well.
Historically, have there been other kinds of agreements like this with other First Nations groups and with the government and the provinces that you can tell us about?
Mr. Almond: Thank you for the question, senator. Yes, there are a number of similar agreements with similar or almost identical provisions with more than 15 self-governing First Nations in Canada.
The measures included in the tax treatment agreements, as they are known in generic terms, are relieving in nature with respect to the tax treatment of the government in certain cases, as we have explained, with respect to registered pension plans, income and the tax treatment for individuals, as well as providing for any future potential amendments that the parties agreed to.
I should note as well that these agreements, in all cases, are public documents. They are available on the Finance Canada website. We can certainly follow up and provide the clerk and the committee with the exact links or, in fact, the exact copies of these agreements for the committee’s benefit.
Again, these agreements are intended to be mutually agreeable technical measures between the parties and are ultimately entered into given that the tax acts of Canada, from the time of Nisga’a and through to the future and current self-governments, don’t include precise enough details to cover all situations with respect to Indigenous governments and their citizens.
Senator Hartling: Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, the floor is still open. If senators have more questions, we have a few minutes. Seeing none, we will go to our next panel.
We will now resume our study on the federal implementation of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Minister Marc Miller is delayed in the House of Commons due to votes, and he will join us in the next half hour.
While we wait for his arrival, I would like to welcome, from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Daniel Quan-Watson, Deputy Minister, and Chantal Marin-Comeau, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat.
I invite Mr. Quan-Watson to begin opening remarks on behalf of Minister Miller for no more than five minutes, and then we will move to questions and answers. Each round will be three minutes in total, as with the previous panels. If the minister, deputy minister or director general are unable to provide an oral answer today, I ask them to submit a written response via the clerk by Friday.
With that, I now pass it over to Deputy Minister Quan-Watson.
[Translation]
Daniel Quan-Watson, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: I’m pleased to be with the committee today. I understand Minister Miller will be joining us shortly. In the meantime, I will present a few quick opening remarks.
[English]
I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today from Edmonton Treaty 6 territory and home of the Métis of Alberta.
[Translation]
As this committee heard earlier this month, our collective work to end this national tragedy centres around implementation of the 231 calls for justice found in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Former commissioners of the inquiry made it clear that governments — including the federal government — have a large role to play in implementing these recommendations, many of which target the root causes of violence.
[English]
A big part of this is providing accessible programs and services in the four key areas identified by the inquiry: culture, health, safety and justice.
Budget 2022 builds on past investments and reconfirmed the more than $2.2 billion the government pledged in 2021 to address this ongoing national tragedy.
Budget 2022 also invests in the National Action Plan on Violence Against Women and Gender-Based Violence, the federal LGBTQ2 Action Plan and the Anti-Racism Action Plan.
[Translation]
All of these initiatives are linked to commitments the Government of Canada made in its federal pathway to address MMIWG and indigenous 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
The government recognizes that access to culture remains an important part of reclaiming power and place, and ultimately, of finding safety. The minister recently announced a series of investments that respond directly to call for justice 2.3 on providing safe cultural spaces for indigenous communities across the country.
In the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake, Quebec, and in 108 Mile Ranch, British Columbia, the government is helping to fund the construction of new cultural centres will serve as safe spaces for community members to share traditional knowledge.
In Savona, British Columbia, the Government of Canada is funding the construction of a traditional pit home and museum facility for the Skeetchestn Indian band. This funding will help the First Nation celebrate and teach others about their culture, and highlight the role of women, girls, as well as two-spirit and LGBTQQIA+ people in their community.
[English]
Last year, the MMIWG secretariat launched a support program for the well-being of families and survivors of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. Through this program, the government has provided more than $2.5 million in funding to 20 Indigenous organizations for projects that deliver healing and wellness activities, programs and services to families and survivors.
Separate from these announcements, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada has allocated almost $1 million to Indigenous organizations to support 19 Indigenous-led data projects. These projects will help us better understand the issue of violence against Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
[Translation]
The government has done some work, and we have made some progress, but much more needs to be done. That much is clear. My department will be providing an update in June this year to outline some of the progress we’ve made to date, and map a path forward.
[English]
We’ve heard the need for robust oversight and accountability mechanisms, for more programs that provide access to education and jobs and other economic opportunities, and for better supports for those dealing with the justice system.
[Translation]
This is a whole-of-government, and whole-of-Canada endeavour. All of our actions need to be done in partnership — developed collaboratively, led by indigenous women, and with input from indigenous communities. This is crucial as we put these recommendations into place. While we have made progress to fill these gaps, we still have more work to do and we will continue this journey together.
Meegwetch, qujannamiik, marsee. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Deputy Minister Quan-Watson. Before I open the floor to questions from our senators, I have one of my own. Some witnesses expressed concerns about the lack of information related to the implementation of the Calls for Justice. How does the department plan to communicate the results of its work?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. Considerable work is happening on that very front. We recognize that knowing what data to measure is critical for the long-term story about this. The best way to make sure that no one can ever put this into a corner again, as it has been for far too long in the history of this issue, is to have data and measurements out there that can be seen in broad daylight.
I talked about 19 projects, for example, around data that are being developed. We will release our first annual report in the month of June. That will be a report not only on the federal plan but the national action plan with provinces and territories and Indigenous groups.
That will grow over time, and part of what we have attempted to ensure we achieve is that this can never be put back to where it once was — which was a state of invisibility — and to make sure that it is in front of all Canadians and all those responsible for making these changes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Quan-Watson.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I believe you both know, and Mr. Miller will soon find out too: I was part of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I am now reacting and asking you questions as a senator.
Please, regarding the $2.2 billion: it’s a crisis, women are still disappearing, still today, in 2022. Young girls are still being victimized by all sorts of things that have been attested to and presented in the calls for justice, which I feel are legal imperatives. So, yes, culture is important, language and all of that is important, but too many women are incarcerated — that is unacceptable — and people are having all sorts of problems.
What does the government intend to do? I see this as an emergency, that Canada and of course, Quebec, need to check, verify and monitor the calls for justice; so, call for justice 1.7, the ombudsperson position, is fundamental and an urgent need. Of course, there is also call for justice 1.10, which requires that the calls for justice be accounted for, reported on and verified.
I don’t want to know how much money is going to be invested, because I don’t feel that saves lives, still today; but as senators, we have to know what the federal government is doing on a daily basis.
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
I think that an absolutely essential element of the commissioners’ report was the great, great, great, series of links between cause and effect. In the past, all too often, there was a blame game or a belief that it was very simple; it was one or two things and if you dealt with them, the situation would be resolved. The report demolishes those arguments forever—it has an incredibly big impact.
I think the senator identified two key elements: the ombudsperson, which again will never allow people to forget, but will shed light on the shortcomings, and the reporting, because it will be on the basis of evaluations that we can demonstrate whether there are shortcomings or, even more importantly, whether there are sometimes successes. So issues of policing, income, education, shelter services in the context of domestic violence, and a whole range of investments will be needed.
It’s true that this is just a start, and it’s absolutely true that the federal government needs to work with the provinces, the territories, and especially the indigenous communities and government. However, it is by responding to all of these calls and all of these causes— it is well written in the report that was published in 2019—and even, I would say, for the first time by weaving all of these links, that we will respond.
[English]
Senator Christmas: I’d like to direct this question to Mr. Quan-Watson. I want to thank you and, through you, the government for the recent budget investments for MMIWG. I know it’s a start, but it’s a good start.
When we heard witnesses from families, understandably there is a lot of distrust with federal and provincial governments, and since there’s such a vulnerable segment of our population that has been abused, neglected and not heard, it’s understandable.
Our witnesses came back to the same point about accountability, and I think they meant not only the accountability of the present government but future governments, both federal and provincial. To them, this was a guarantee of accountability and action.
I noted in the National Action Plan that all governments would take action to establish a national Indigenous and human rights ombudsman before June 3, 2022, and no doubt your reference to your upcoming annual report is what’s in mind.
Without jeopardizing too much of your report — but it’s critical that this committee be precise and accurate in its reporting — can you tell me what steps the federal government is going to take or is taking in establishing a national Indigenous human rights ombudsperson?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. I’ll turn to my colleague Chantal Marin-Comeau for some of the details. This is obviously a very important issue, as I mentioned earlier, ensuring that it’s impossible for these issues to fall into the shadows as they did too often in the past. There were people that we dealt with. You referred to the survivors and families. There were people who had been after some type of recognition for 50 years before this process was launched, and we understand the lack of trust on that front. I think it goes to demonstrate the critical need of the ombudsperson and the reporting that would highlight these matters.
We have been working very closely with provinces and territories. I don’t think we’re as far along as we would have hoped at this point in time, but they are advancing very nicely. The provinces and territories recognize the need for this issue as well. Certainly, the survivors have been very clear on the focus, and the federal government, as always, will stand very closely with the survivors on that front, and we hope to have it resolved shortly.
Perhaps my colleague Ms. Marin-Comeau can speak to the specific meetings that have been going on.
Chantal Marin-Comeau, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you very much for that question and thank you, deputy. As the deputy mentioned, accountability is important. It’s a shared accountability between the federal, provincial, territorial and all levels of government. This also has links to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
What the federal government has been up to recently is, through the Department of Justice and Crown-Indigenous Relations, we’ve been starting to engage on what this national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and tribunal could look like and could be. We have started to engage Indigenous partners. We will be more proactively engaging families and survivors in order to establish the scope of an ombudsperson.
Obviously, there needs to be a lot more engagement as well on the provincial and territorial sides to see that this ombudsperson is fully equipped to actually have accountability and do some oversight on matters relating to federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions.
We anticipate that this will be discussed during the development of the action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the act that is currently being developed, and it will be under way.
Some preliminary work has been undertaken. Much more engagement needs to be done, and the government is fully committed and has started this important engagement on this very critical matter. Thank you very much.
Senator Christmas: Thank you very much for that answer. Mr. Quan-Watson, do you envision introducing legislation in Parliament to enact the ombudsperson?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Certainly, we’ll meet the commitment that was there. I’m not able to speak exactly to the timing of that, but certainly we’re pursuing the full meeting of that commitment, yes.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, deputy.
Senator Patterson: I have just a quick follow-up to that line of questioning. I think the commitment did involve timing, so I hope that we’ll get an answer that will confirm the promised timing as well.
I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here.
There are 231 Calls for Justice. The question is: Where do you start? You’ve said you’ve engaged on the ombudsperson recommendation. I’m wondering if the department has established priorities for action, recognizing you’re not going to be able to do all 231 at once. I know engagement is required, but has the department established priorities, and if so, could those be shared with the committee?
Second, there was mention of $2.2 billion over five years, and Budget 2021 had allocated $724 million for violence prevention strategies. These are to cover First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Has the department determined how these funds will be disbursed to achieve fairness among the First Nation, Inuit and Métis constituents?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. I think one of the best ways to think about where the priorities have been is in the area of spending. For example, if we go back to 2019, there was $21 million over three years for health supports and victim services supports, recognizing that critical aspect.
There were commemoration investments, for example, to honour the lives and legacy of those who were murdered and went missing.
A review of police policies and practices was something that we funded in 2019, again, demonstrating the importance of policing as a priority, including a review of the National Investigation Standards and Practices Unit.
In the fall of 2020, we added quite substantially to that, and it was the issue of infrastructure. It may not be obvious to some as to what infrastructure would have to do with MMIWG, but many of the circumstances that led to people being in situations that left them more vulnerable were the lack of housing or the lack of safe drinking water in the community and many others. So that has been a significant priority.
Shelters, in instances of conjugal violence, for example, were ones that we also put significant money into over time. In June of last year, 12 new shelters were announced, with $85 million and $10.2 million annually after that.
But in the budget last year, there was $18 billion to narrow the gaps between the outcomes of Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous people, and that goes to MMIWG findings, again, in a comprehensive report that tied all those links between causes and effects. That is an area on a whole bunch of different fronts, everything from data to helping the survivors and families of those who were victims, to housing, again, to shelters to creating a secretariat to make sure that we don’t lose track of these issues and they remain there.
We work very closely with Métis, Inuit and First Nations and they have been an integral part of the conversations about how to do this spending and will continue to be as well to make sure that the appropriate funding goes to each of those groups. Obviously, it’s not a formulaic process. It’s not always easy. The needs are different, but that is the purpose of ensuring we work together.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses. My questions relate to the linking of the work your department is doing with other departments, given that reconciliation and implementation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action are essentially part of the mandate letters of every minister.
How are you interconnecting to ensure that the sorts of frameworks that you were just speaking about are in place and ensuring that you see the results down the line in things like addressing the over-incarceration and the mass incarceration of Indigenous women, in particular now that they are one in two in the federal prison system? How do you see your role in terms of making sure those departments are following through on their Calls for Justice?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. I think it goes very much to the title of the department: Crown-Indigenous Relations. The department for which I am the deputy minister and Marc Miller is the minister is in large part responsible for organizing the Crown perspective on these relationships. We spend a lot of time doing that. The secretariat that is housed in the department is responsible for bringing together those federal departments and for making sure that the commitments of the federal pathway on this file are not only well thought out but well presented, well understood, well delivered and well reported on.
Obviously, as with any report that notes multiple causes related to the effects that are unfortunately present in too many of the lives of Indigenous women and girls, it is critical for us to make sure that we’re coordinated in our efforts. So we do that. I won’t suggest that we get it perfect, but it is the first time.
Again, I’ll go back to my comment on the report itself. It is the first time in something like 30 years of my working in this field that I have ever seen all of the various causes from a broad spectrum of needs and realities tied together to these outcomes. Far too frequently in the past it was treated as though it was a single, linear set of causes and if you could only deal with that, everything would be fine. This report laid bare those arguments and demonstrates that you have to address all these things. We recognize we need to bring the fullness of the federal family together in responding along with provincial and territorial governments and Indigenous communities and governments as well.
Senator Pate: Will you be issuing reports in terms of progress on these initiatives?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Yes. There will be one on the national plan that we will be doing in June and another that we will be doing on the federal pathway. Too many people think of national as meaning federal. National, of course, involves all these other players, but there is a separate report, which is the federal pathways, and that is our responsibility as a federal government to undertake the parts of the 231 Calls for Justice that your colleague referred to earlier that belong properly to the federal government.
Of course, any given Call for Justice could involve multiple governments; maybe the federal government’s entirely responsible for it, maybe we’re responsible for a portion of it, but one way or the other, our job is to make sure that we capture all of that and that we respond appropriately.
Senator Arnot: My question is to Deputy Minister Quan-Watson. Thank you for coming today, sir.
A lot of the effectiveness of the response is going to be predicated on the collaboration and cooperation of the provinces and territories. Do you feel that you’re getting the proper response from provinces and territories? If not, how do you want to work with those that may be reluctant to move forward in a robust manner to actually achieve the goals of the Calls for Justice?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. First of all, it’s important to note that when the National Action Plan came out in June of last year, every province and territory was involved, along with many Indigenous groups as well.
On a set of issues that are as challenging as these and on which there are as many different perspectives as there are, it is not often in the Canadian federation that you actually pull all of those governments together, and we managed to do that.
It is clear that the specific histories and the needs and the relationships will differ from province to province and territory to territory, and there’ll be some significant differences in the way they engage, but they have all demonstrated a strong willingness to continue engaging. The fact that we will come up to the first anniversary and its report with, we believe, all the provinces and territories engaging is going to be important, but I think, too, that the reporting that I talked to earlier, and the ombudsperson that we are going to set up, will be important tools in laying bare, again, where there are gaps and where the accountability for those gaps lies.
Incarceration and imprisonment have been mentioned and obviously the provinces and the administration of justice have a significant role to play on that front. Many of the education and social services that have been brought into question are under provincial or territorial jurisdiction, and those needs will be highlighted as well.
We will certainly be there to press those conversations. We are not going to shy away from the evaluations that come forward, and we will certainly, in the process of responding, make sure that the problems and challenges are identified so they can be resolved no matter where the responsibility lies.
Senator Arnot: I’d like to hear more from the deputy minister with respect to education and those elements in the Calls for Justice. He’s mentioned the police forces, medical personnel and others which have provincial authority. What about the broad education of the larger public about these issues and their importance to be resolved?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you for that question and the line of thinking. Obviously, senator, with your history as Treaty Commissioner, you will well know what it means when people do not understand their own history. I’m thinking particularly of non-Indigenous people who have no understanding of the significance and meaning of treaties.
One of the things that the report and many others have pointed out is that we all end up suffering, but Indigenous people in particular, when the rest of the population hasn’t learned the histories fully or accurately.
I know my colleagues from ISC, in their work on education, are working to address these issues not only in the programming for which they are directly responsible but in their engagement with provinces and territories.
One of the elements that is maybe a little bit beside the question that you have, but that I think is very important, is that the income issues that so often led to insecurity for so many of these victims have, as part of the response, education — the type of education that lets you earn a stable income, lets you participate fully and makes you more aware of the avenues of redress that are available to you if systems fail to provide you what you need, and that is generally correlated to much more positive life outcomes over time. That’s another angle of education that is going to be critically important here.
I do underline the aspect I think you were getting to principally, which is that if other non-Indigenous people do not understand the history, the circumstances, the aspirations and the capacities of Indigenous communities, we will continue to face many of the underlying challenges that were so well outlined in the report and that often have far too big an impact on the outcomes we are desperately trying to avoid here.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Chair: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls explains that the implementation of the Calls for Justice must include the participation and perspectives of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people with lived experience, including the families of survivors of violence and the missing and murdered.
What approach should be taken to ensure the inclusion and perspective of diverse groups of Indigenous, women, girls and 2SLGBTQ2IA+ people in the implementation of the Calls for Justice, and to what extent might the support differ by region or Indigenous group? In your view, has this approach been taken in the National Action Plan?
Mr. Quan-Watson: I am happy to answer to that question. I’ll turn to my colleague Ms. Marin-Comeau for the specific work that’s been going on.
All those things are at the very core. For example, there is the National Action Plan, where we worked closely with survivors’ groups, with community groups, with Indigenous governments and with Indigenous representative organizations. At the end of the day, they are the people who pushed the hardest for the inquiry in the first place and who insisted that Canadians stop ignoring this set of issues. In the end, if they are not convinced we are making progress, I think by definition it’s difficult for governments to disagree and say we are if they are not of that same view.
We have undertaken many approaches to make sure they are not only involved but are also at the centre of that. Perhaps I could turn quickly to my colleague to explain some of the work going on to keep them at the centre.
Ms. Marin-Comeau: Thank you very much for the question. The National Action Plan, launched on June 3, 2021, was Indigenous led. From coast to coast to coast, Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQ2IA+ organizations and people were heavily involved, broadly engaged and dedicated to this work.
Back then, the National Action Plan was launched alongside Indigenous partners, including committees and advocacy groups such as the National Family and Survivors Circle. There was an urban committee as well representing urban Indigenous, and there is still a national committee on 2SLGBTQ2IA+ working hard on the implementation for their peoples. First Nations, Inuit and Métis from across the country were heavily involved and were leading this national action plan.
In addition, national Indigenous organizations, such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, were also part of this development as well as some regional organizations. Many of those have continued with the implementation aspects, particularly with more focus on the National Family and Survivors Circle. Families and survivors are also engaged through various provinces and territories, as well as through organizations, federal departments and agencies.
To name a few, Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQ2IA+ organizations have and will remain at the centre of this effort at the federal, provincial and territorial levels and, obviously, through close collaboration with provinces and territories that have their own networks as well of Indigenous organizations that they work with.
In addition, various government organizations, departments and agencies have fully engaged with Indigenous partners on their initiatives. That will also be included in the report on June 3 for the federal plan. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you both for your answers.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Thank you to my colleague for that question. I would like to go into more detail, because it is important to separate, for example, the Inuit and the Innu—they are two worlds and two cultures. Several nations in Quebec do not speak English as a second language. Canada tends to create organizations that use English as a language of exchange and a common language.
What are your strategies for communities like Schefferville, Pakuashipi, Obedjiwan, communities that may not even be aware of all the issues related to the IMMIWG and funding opportunities? What is being done for all our sisters in the Maritimes who are so far from Ottawa? The further away you are from Ottawa, the less access you have to funding. There are also those who save lives in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. I don’t know how we’re going to deal with them. We tend to fund organizations that are already established, whereas grassroots organizations may not have the capacity to get that funding. How can we support them so that they benefit from the $2.2 billion budget, because they save and support lives? Do you have any solutions for them?
Mr. Quan-Watson: I will begin, if I may, Mr. Chair, and then turn the floor over to Ms. Marin-Comeau.
I think at the end of the day, we are doing things for the first time, in several cases, for example, cultural spaces. In the past, many people had told us that it was necessary and even essential; moreover, we wondered what it had to do with security issues. We got into this, into mental health issues, which we had never done in the past. What is most fascinating is that the people and organizations in the communities involved are often very different from the people we usually work with. This is a very important aspect of the future and sustainable success of this venture. Many more people will be engaged, not just the same institutions as in the past. My colleague can talk about particular examples, for example, in the field of the development of cultural spaces. These are often not the same people as those we usually work with. There are obviously others as well, so I’ll hand over to my colleague.
Ms. Marin-Comeau: Thank you very much, Senator, for this very important question. Thank you to the deputy minister. First of all, the government is aware that the grassroots organizations, which you are talking about, are the ones that have the most impact in dealing with this national tragedy. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada developed and launched a program for the well-being of survivors’ families last year. This program is in its second year. It was created and developed with the assistance of Indigenous Services Canada. There is obviously more to be done to improve the process. We heard that it was difficult for organizations, for individuals, to access this funding. We’re working to put solutions in place for programs that fall under Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, to help these people and organizations manoeuver and access this funding.
It’s a lot of work, because there are over 25 departments and agencies that are involved in the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2ELGBTQQIA+ people. There is a lot of work to be done with these departments to improve the funding process. We really need to focus on where the impact will be greatest. We are aware of this and it is part of our concerns and commitments.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Thank you for your presentation and thank you for your response.
Senator Christmas: A few weeks ago, my 32-year-old daughter was declared missing by New Brunswick police. She wasn’t missing. I knew where she was. We have a family camp up in the Cape Breton Highlands. On the spur of the moment, she and another family decided to go there and, of course, for a week nobody could reach them, so they were declared missing.
What really impressed me was the response of the police, at least one particular police officer. He did an outstanding job throughout this false emergency. I had to contact him to thank him and tell him I was impressed by how well he responded.
That raised in my mind the bigger question. It’s now three years since the commission filed a report. It seemed to me that the centre of this was the previous response of various police forces across Canada, be it the RCMP, be it the provincial police forces or be it municipal. You can’t help but think that if the police response was anywhere near what this young constable did in New Brunswick, we wouldn’t have had the situation that we have today.
I’m sometimes a little overwhelmed by the complexity and the breadth and the depth of this issue. You mentioned multiple government departments. You mentioned the provinces. You mentioned the territories. Over the past three years, deputy, have you begun to see transformation and changes within our police forces when they deal with missing Indigenous women? If so, can you also relate some examples of how police cultures are beginning to change and become more responsive to the situation?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question and for that very poignant example. I agree with you that had police services across the country over the decades responded in similar ways, the likelihood that we would have had the outcomes that were at the focus of this inquiry would not have been there.
Having said that, you referred to the complexity, and the underlying issues — what it means when you don’t have stable housing, when your education can’t get you the job that you need, when you have to leave a marriage or a relationship but don’t have anywhere to go — are also always present, and often, of course, policing is the last available response to a series of things that have gone horribly wrong beforehand.
Now, I can’t speak on behalf of police forces, but I can say that in my interactions with the RCMP, which is the police force that I work with, they have taken very seriously all of the conversations that we have had. I know that monies have been invested with the RCMP on a couple of matters that I referred to earlier about the standards unit, for example. I know the commissioner has taken that very seriously. No doubt the police can come and give you a fuller report on it.
I referred in part of my earlier answers to the importance that this can never be pushed out of the way again. This can simply never be pushed into the shadows or explained away like it was for so many decades. I do not say that that problem is completely solved, but I do think the last three years, and not only the time of the report — the heart-wrenching stories that were told time and time again, and your colleague Senator Audette was there and heard some of these stories — woke many Canadians up to a reality.
You refer to what happened when you phoned this officer. Almost every other Canadian citizen expects that as simply the baseline for the beginning of a conversation with any public institution. Unfortunately, it is the exception and has been the exception for too many people.
The fact that we have had these conversations, this report, this testimony, makes it ever more difficult for any institution to go back to where we were, and certainly I have seen the RCMP taking it very seriously in any conversations that I have been involved in with them.
Senator Christmas: Along those lines, deputy, can you describe for us some of the changes that you have seen within the RCMP?
Mr. Quan-Watson: It’s very difficult for me to do that in detail in that I have my exchanges with the commissioner and with some of their bodies, but they show up and they show up willingly. We have detailed conversations about the importance of these matters. They are the ones often raising what they hope to do and what they need to do.
Again, I’ve been in some form of this business for almost 30 years, and I would say that what I’m seeing today is different than most of the 30 years that I’ve been in this business, and I attribute that to people taking it seriously. They go away and they do the things that they have said they would do, and it’s clear in the conversations that they are taking it seriously.
Again, I can’t speak beyond that to what happens operationally or the rest. I’m not in the RCMP and can’t speak for them, but certainly, if I’m to reference the conversations I have been having, that’s the nature of them.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, deputy.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our two witnesses this afternoon. There has been so much important food for thought and for action.
I have two questions, if I may ask them both at the same time. We have been fortunate on this committee to have heard from the commissioners themselves, and we have one former commissioner sitting with us here at the table. Something came up in our conversation at committee about the potential role on an ongoing basis for those commissioners in interacting with the ongoing process as their recommendations are implemented. So my first question is about any possible roles that you see or are in conversation with the former commissioners about their ongoing involvement with implementation of the Calls for Justice and the overall plan.
My second question flows somewhat from Senator Christmas’s point and other points that people have been making about urgency — putting the money and resources into those things that are going to have the biggest and most significant impacts to stop this so that we’re not having more missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and others.
As we go along as a country, and as you go along with the various partners in implementing both the federal and the national strategy and we’re monitoring and, I would hope, evaluating very carefully what differences are being made, how will decisions be made around watering what I call the flowers instead of putting the water on the weeds? How do we ensure that the resources will be well spent based on changes that we’re seeing happen? Because we want changes to happen, so I’m just curious about that. I know some change will take time, so it will be hard to measure, but what are the processes in place to really evaluate and then shift as required to make sure that we’re doing the right things?
Mr. Quan-Watson: Thank you very much for the question. On the first one about the future involvement of the commissioners, it’s regular practice for many different commissioners that there is ongoing contact and questioning. Sometimes it’s more of a formal nature; sometimes it’s less of a formal nature. It would be up to the minister to arrive at the conclusions on the basis for that. But to be very clear, we had commissioners who were extraordinarily dedicated, who heard from thousands of people and who provided a report. Again, I continue to underline it because I haven’t seen anything like it in my 30 years in this business that tied together for the first time ever, as far as I can tell, the breadth of underlying causes.
It goes a little bit to your second question on the prioritization. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, at some point or another, all of them are hit in the needs that are identified in this report. There are very few other segments of the Canadian population where we might do that type of study and find that many of the most fundamental needs are not being met and therefore creating those types of results that the commission and its report detailed and that we need to address.
When it comes to the question of knowing whether you’re doing the right things, that is where it is absolutely critical that the survivors, communities and those who work with those most at risk not only be involved but be at the centre of what we’re doing. The relationship we need to develop between the federal government, provincial and territorial governments —
The Chair: Mr. Quan-Watson, I’m sorry to interrupt. The minister is here, so we will pause briefly and shift over. Thank you.
Mr. Quan-Watson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Minister, wela’lin, thank you for joining us to discuss the federal implementation of the national inquiry, which is of urgent importance to the well-being and safety of Indigenous women and girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
Since we already had an opportunity to hear directly from officials, I now invite senators to direct questions on this topic directly to the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Good afternoon, and thank you for attending the committee. I hope you voted for a good cause, but let’s get back to the major societal project; I hope your energy and leadership will resonate across Canada.
As I was saying to your colleagues, I remind you of the importance — for the 251 appeals to justice, plus those specific to the Government of Quebec — of accountability, of mechanisms and ways for families and others to be able to be accountable or to ask questions individually, and, of course, of the ombudsperson and the tribunal. This is from “Calls for Justice”, in government obligation 1.10. The families I know or work with are pushing to make sure everything is important, but if there is no accountability, we risk using that to fund things that have no real impact for Indigenous women and girls. What do you have to say about this?
I’ll move on to my second question. How do we make sure that this is felt all the way to Pakuashipi, Schefferville, Obedjiwan and Manawan, instead of centralizing everything in what we traditionally know — the organizations? They do good work, but what are the strategies to save lives in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside or in remote communities?
Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations: Thank you, senator, for that very pertinent question. First, I would like to say to the committee that I am sorry for my tardiness.
First and foremost, if there is anything that the IMMIWG final report has taught us, it is that the government’s approach must be systemic, not piecemeal.
The reality in all of this — and this is a bit of a start to answering your second question — is that we should not be satisfied as long as women, children and LGBTQ2+ people are still living in insecurity in this country. This is a very high standard and a great burden on the shoulders of the federal government. We’re not alone, but we’re responsible, and we have to admit it.
From the perspective of a pandemic that has made women and children more vulnerable and more prone to violence — that’s tangible and measured — there’s bound to be a failure to be seen, and there will be a failure as long as people don’t feel safe in the communities you’ve named.
Accountability is essential — the deputy minister talked about it — whether it’s through the establishment of an ombudsperson who can add teeth to accountability or something else, it’s a key principle and I support the approach. We’re not there yet, but we’ll be there and we have to do it in the right way. It’s very important to show society that the multi-billion-dollar investments, whether it’s the 2021 budget or the investments in the 2022 budget, are for grassroots organizations. I think the deputy minister has named or could have named over 40 organizations or programs that have been funded.
When it comes to standards, outcomes and levels to be achieved, what is really important is the safety of people who are not safe today, as well as taking a systemic approach and not a piecemeal or haphazard approach. We need to talk about reforming the health care system in this country and the justice system, especially for people who are very vulnerable in the custody and prison system in this country. This is not something that is going to happen overnight. We have no apologies to make, but we have to get on with the job and that’s what we’re trying to do across government. We’ll be at the end of the first year on June 3 or 4; we’ll have to start being accountable, but it’s not the role of the federal government to evaluate itself; that’s for independent third parties to do.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the minister for appearing. It’s unfortunate — and we understand the circumstances — that we don’t have much time today, and we’re not getting the eagerly awaited report on progress until after this meeting, on June 3.
Minister, obviously, we’re quite engaged in this important work as a committee, so would you be willing to continue to update the committee on progress in the coming parliamentary session this fall and beyond?
Mr. Miller: Yes, absolutely. I have a bit more time today. I don’t want to blow up my schedule and impact a whole bunch of other people, but I think a few more minutes after this, if you want to extend for people who feel they want to ask more questions. I would also be glad to come back to this committee at any time to talk in more detail about what is going on. This is too much of an important topic to oppose the procedure of the Senate. I’m glad to offer my time any time you choose to have me back.
Senator Patterson: Thank you very much, minister. We know it’s a challenge. I think the committee would want to help and be supportive as we move forward, so thanks for that commitment.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Minister Miller, for being able to appear before us today.
You mentioned in your comments about the national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson. In the upcoming report or afterward, do you envision a federal legislative response to establish the ombudsperson’s role and office?
Mr. Miller: I’m going to give you an incomplete answer, senator. The question really is whether those are powers that I believe already reside in the Minister of Justice. I think we have looked internally at the powers I hold and find them lacking. Again, we’re always willing to revise those. It’s work that we are currently undertaking, and we’re not in a position that I’m particularly happy with. We have to look at that quite soberly in our assessment, particularly as we come up to the first anniversary. I’m absolutely willing to walk down the path of the legislative process.
The issue is really around one that Senator Audette raised, which is about accounting and being able to sit there and ask, “Where is X, Y or Z fund going? What is the result it is achieving, and what are the objectives?” Obviously, the overarching objective is we shouldn’t be happy until everybody is safe in this country, but we have to be able to measure these billions of dollars to make sure that the impact is going to the people who know best how to address this ongoing tragedy.
Senator Christmas: The deputy mentioned during his comments to the committee a linkage between the UNDRIP and MMIWG national action plans. I didn’t have time to ask the deputy what that linkage was. Now that you have mentioned the Minister of Justice, is the implementation of the MMIWG national action plan tied to the UNDRIP national action plan?
Mr. Miller: Senator, I would say yes, but not necessarily. They’re related insofar as the review of racist laws like the Indian Act and others less obvious under our government by adopting UNDRIP and the review we have to undertake over that period. The action plans that Minister Lametti, principally, and I are tasked with producing are ones that will impact the safety of women and how our laws have, in a prejudicial fashion, negatively impacted Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ persons in this country. That is part of the systemic response.
I have a very specific leadership role in responding to the final report on MMIWG in coordinating with the ministers who are involved as well and with respect to whom these Calls for Justice directly relate — specifically, in this case, the Calls for Justice but also Public Safety Canada and Indigenous Services Canada for health and wellness, as well as many others that are covered.
They’re obviously intertwined from a systemic perspective, but the production of one report is not dependent on the other, and there are different people affected by each crucial piece of work of this government.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, minister.
Senator Pate: Thank you, minister, for joining us and for all the work you’re doing.
I noticed you said that your powers are lacking. I want to come back to that. When our colleague and the rest of the commissioners were looking at the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, they linked it clearly to the overall socio-economic, health and inequities generally that are experienced. We know that the same issues that give rise to Indigenous women being disappeared or murdered in this country are the same issues that give rise to their being on the street, in poverty and in jails, and we’re at a crisis now.
I understand that you have been working with other ministers on these issues. I’m curious as to how you see implementing these accountability measures. What are the powers that you see are lacking? It strikes me that as we and the inquiry and commissioners raise new and creative ways, it seems that the response of the government is to look at the old practices and still try to shoehorn these issues into current silos and mandates.
Although reconciliation is part of the mandate letter of every minister, it’s hard to see where we’re moving beyond the current siloed approach within this government. Given your role to be able to cross over those, what powers are you lacking? What could we recommend that would assist you?
Mr. Miller: That’s an excellent question, and I could spend a good chunk of this time talking about the siloed approach of the government, having been a minister principally throughout a world pandemic and crisis where siloed approaches can cost lives.
It’s something that we certainly reflected on in cabinet. It doesn’t mean those silos don’t exist anymore, whether it’s in the civil service — without judging anyone — or in the way ministers behave. One thing we’ve been able to prove is that when we work together, even as ministers within public service entities, the results are much better.
In this case they’re crucial, and I wouldn’t limit it to the federal government. I would include the work we do with provincial and municipal entities, which are an immense portion of the equation that we’re talking about today.
Regarding the powers, I don’t have the authority by the stroke of a pen to appoint an ombudsperson with the proper authorities that would be independent and be able to give Canadians, survivors and their families a sense that the federal government is being held to account, or a pivot point for people to report issues where we’re failing or succeeding. It doesn’t matter. I just don’t have that power, and it’s probably good in many contexts. In this one, it’s unfortunate, but when we examine the powers that other departments have, we find in some iterations that the Minister of Justice could have that. This could be a discussion at cabinet and would be something that we would need to work through.
That is an example of how we work in a siloed approach. It is probably one of many, and there are others that are worse.
The tendency to flow funding through existing organizations and authorities is something that sometimes is expedient, but, obviously, as we’ve seen particularly in this field, where jurisdiction is an impediment to results, it’s something we’re very conscious of. We also have the uneasy parallel I’m facing now with the search for lost ones as part of residential schools. The necessary jurisdictional oppositions that you always see opposed to Indigenous peoples trying to get a measure of truth for some closure has been highlighted in the TRC report. It’s highlighted in any sort of issue, particularly in the need to support people in the urban context, where the federal government has a much more limited effective role. Forget for a moment our policy or inability or unwillingness at times to invest in those issues, which is well documented.
Part of the work we did when I occupied the role of Minister of Indigenous Services was expanding the authorities, specifically in response to the Calls for Justice to make sure that we are able to fund organizations that are not strictly, so to speak, on reserve or in the Far North. But it’s something we’ve done, and we have to continue to reinvent and, frankly, question ourselves in the way we deploy funds. That’s not without questioning or checking the effectiveness of their use, but not behaving in the way we have behaved up to now that has either deliberately or by wilful blindness or omission created the tragedy we are in today.
I think, as senators, scrutinizing the points that I just made is very important, and it could be helpful to my job to have bodies such as yours look into that in more detail. It has been highlighted in our report, but it does bear more scrutiny as you look at the effectiveness of how the funds and supports are being deployed.
Senator Pate: I know that earlier today you were at a press conference with Minister Lametti and Minister Hajdu, and there was the issue of the over-incarceration and the ability to look retrospectively at some of these issues as a way to link in the Calls for Justice as well as the Calls to Action of the TRC. What role do you see yourself as having in that kind of process to try to encourage your cabinet colleagues to embark on that kind of review?
Mr. Miller: First and foremost, the Prime Minister has said quite clearly that’s in our mandate letters. It is of the utmost importance, whether you’re looking at implementing the TRC’s Calls to Action or the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the ongoing search and tragedy of residential schools and the impacts it’s having today, that we keep looking at how we work with each other. The point of having Minister Lametti and Minister Hajdu as well as a number of other ministers that are involved in this is to make sure that we are having a concerted response, and that we aren’t saying, as people are reeling, “ISC doesn’t do this,” or “CIRNAC doesn’t do this,” and all these acronyms, so that someone who is looking for answers doesn’t have these roadblocks put up against them.
It’s an uneasy parallel but, throughout the last two years, we realized that breaking down a lot of these walls that have their genesis in our colonial past has created impediments. Breaking through them is not easy, and I wouldn’t hide that from you, but it is something that is top of mind, particularly in these two areas where the federal government has played a lead, whether it’s through the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations but also through the key ministers to this file who are, essentially, key to the implementation of the Calls for Justice and the TRC’s Calls to Action. The ministers who were there today and the ones who are around the cabinet table are very aware of that. As the work goes on and as we continue to challenge ourselves, it is probably the number one bureaucratic impediment to this.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Miller.
Honourable senators, the floor is still open.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I invite you, minister, in this case, to be a proactive neighbour and to talk to us more often to see how we, as colleagues, can support the approach of parliamentarians and your government. I think our vision is to bring something to the Senate and to ask Senator Gold questions more often. I think that in between questions, we need to talk to each other officially. If we don’t know what’s going on, we can invent all sorts of scenarios. The more we know, the better we can explain to the families, groups and movements we are involved in that things are moving forward.
Mr. Miller: Absolutely. I’ll be happy to do it. I would not like to add formality to an already sometimes too formal context. However, if need be, I will gladly accept. Of course, I encourage you to contact me or my team directly to invite me to contribute. I know that many of you, including yourself, senator, have an interest in this issue on a daily basis. I welcome that complicity and that sharing, because it makes our work more effective, but not easier. It helps, especially in the communities that you actively represent, to get the message out or to get a message to us. There is a lot of work to be done and it will not be effective if we do not listen to you. I welcome this exchange very much.
[English]
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. Wela’lin, thank you, Minister Miller, Mr. Quan-Watson and Ms. Marin-Comeau.
(The committee adjourned.)