THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 31, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. It is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, senator from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Prosper: Senator Paul Prosper. I am from Nova Scotia, the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen from Alberta. I live in Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Audette: Kwe. Michèle Audette, Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we are continuing our study into the effectiveness of the Canadian human rights framework in the promotion, protection and realization of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Specifically, we are considering whether existing mechanisms could be improved, or whether new ones are required, including Indigenous-specific.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses. From the Piikani Nation, we welcome Neil Sharp Adze Jr., Councillor. And from the Siksika Nation, we welcome Marsha Wolf Collar, Minor Chief; and Lou Ann Solway, Minor Chief. Wela’lin. Thank you all for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I will now invite Neil Sharp Adze Jr. to give his opening remarks.
Neil Sharp Adze Jr., Councillor, Piikani Nation: I’m from the Blackfoot Confederacy territory, which is part of Treaty 7. I’m honoured to be speaking to everybody here today. A lot of work still needs to be done for the treaties and the treaty implementations for our people. I am just speaking for the Piikani Nation, but I’m sure it would resonate with the other members from the Blackfoot Confederacy at this meeting, as well as the other Indigenous people at this meeting.
When we’re looking at the treaties, the constitutional protections and the human rights of the Indigenous people of Turtle Island, it’s evident that our people are not being treated equally compared to the other humans who live on Turtle Island.
The Piikani people are experiencing encroachment, which is one of the reasons we signed treaties in the first place. We’re experiencing encroachment on our territories. From the beginning, the encroachment was impacting our people, our way of life and our way to practise ceremonies. Our ceremonies were pushed out, as everybody is aware — they were made illegal. We had to start practising them underground. They are a source of strength and identity for our people that separates us from the other people on Turtle Island. Practising the ceremonies is still a struggle today for the Piikani Nation people.
We had a sun dance during the summertime, and the repair work on the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District limited our ability to harvest our necessary elements from the earth to be able to practise our ceremonies properly. However, we were still able to complete the ceremony within the confinements of the waters because we’re not able to cross the water bodies when we’re collecting or harvesting our items for the ceremonies.
The encroachment of our people is only being expanded today by the number of immigrants who are being welcomed into our country. Our people have always welcomed other people into our nation; however, our people understood the carrying capacities for our land. One of our prominent medicine men — if you want to call him that — brings down the sun. He understood the importance of carrying capacities on our land in that he would tell our people to go away from our campsites, and to collect in our woods and hunt animals for whatever was necessary. They would leave our campsites and go into the mountains, where things were abundant for us to capture them. Today, our people aren’t able to practise those things because of parks and recreation. The Indigenous people, the First Nations people, of this area — specifically the Blackfoot Confederacy members who were the stewards of the land — are unable to practise that today because parks and recreation took that responsibility from us. We see the end result of what they did with all the forest fires that happened.
When we did the sound test for this meeting, I mentioned that we still have bears living in our river valley. Normally, they would be migrating into the mountains to go and hibernate. However, because of all the wildfires, our ancestors in the bear — kiááyo, as we call them — aren’t able to return to those areas naturally for themselves. This is a great concern for us because our bears are a source of protection for us — one of our strong ancestors that we have in our lives. They’re not able to go up in our prayers. We pray that the berries grow thick, the grass grows high and the waters flow through so that all the animals that gave us our songs and our stories can live the lives that they should be able to live without any harm. As humans, that’s the same thing we’re asking for — that same protection.
When you look at the treaties, we have limited success in them. The Prime Minister is able to have treaty negotiations with the “Three Amigos” in regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. They’re able to renegotiate the terms of those treaties. But our treaties are still not meeting the needs of what our people asked for when we originally had them. We have an opioid crisis on the reserve.
The First Nations people signed those treaties. The Piikani signed those treaties to push out the whisky traders who were poisoning our people. That’s why we made the relationship with Colonel Macleod: to push out those whisky traders. Today, we have opioid dealers surrounding our community. When we have big settlements, like in Siksika and Kainai, the predators and the vultures start to come around and attack our people, selling them harmful drugs and taking away all the money that our people are receiving in these big settlements. It’s only causing more harm to our people.
A lot of work needs to be done. We’re limited in economic development because of what the mineral agreements did to our people — taking away minerals from our people so that we’re not able to be successful in any type of economy. We have terms like usufructuary rights that take away our ability to do any meaningful development on our lands. When you look at usufructuary rights, the Crown owns the underlying title to everything. They claim the underlying title to anything that’s in the lines of usufructuary rights, yet our housing on our nation — which would fall into those lines — is in a state of repair. We need major repairs to all of our housing on the nation. That’s just our nation, but I’m sure it is the same across North America, specifically in the Canadian region. This impacts us.
On top of that, we had a Jay Treaty conference not too long ago. All of our people shared the impacts of not being able to cross the forty-ninth parallel or the “Medicine Line.”
There’s lots of work that needs to be done in terms of treaty and human rights as a fundamental issue.
Those are my opening remarks. Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sharp Adze.
I invite Marsha Wolf Collar and Lou Ann Solway to give their opening remarks. They are going to share five minutes.
Marsha Wolf Collar, Minor Chief, Siksika Nation: [Indigenous language spoken] which means “holy rapid woman.”
Good morning, everyone and Senate. Thank you for this time and opportunity to speak.
In regard to the focus today — which is your study that is looking at the establishment of an independent national Indigenous and human rights ombudsman, as well as a national Indigenous and human rights tribunal — while also looking at the other theme in regard to the missing and murdered Indigenous women, I go back to the things that are the root cause, and I think about how important this meeting is today.
I look at some of the historical trauma — we’re all aware of the 215 children in British Columbia — but also at the discrimination and the violence rooted in colonialism.
As an Indigenous woman, I — and many others — continue to face structured and systemic racism. Those are some of our realities. There’s a lot of systemic racism that comes with the barriers that we have to continually live with day-to-day.
Some of these barriers, as many of you know, are about accessing services, and this disproportionately impacts Indigenous peoples, especially Indigenous women and those residing in remote communities.
I also want to speak to the geographic situation. For Siksika Nation — and I know Piikani Nation — we are about an hour east of the city of Calgary. We are quite isolated. We are the second-largest land base in Canada. Our community has approximately 8,000 members. I believe there is about 54% to 55% living on the reserve. The others are living off-reserve. A lot of it has to do with the lack of housing. A lot of it also has to do with the lack of resources that Indigenous populations don’t have access to.
I know that Councillor Sharp Adze mentioned the impacts that we are experiencing in our communities in southern Alberta. That has to do with the opioid crisis.
One of these things that reverts me back is the lack of essential services. We need to develop policy around that, in other words, especially with policing. For Siksika Nation, we are moving forward with the establishment of our own stand-alone agreement with Alberta and Canada. This has been ongoing for probably close to 15 years, trying to re-establish our policing agreement.
There are a lot of issues that we are experiencing in our communities due to the lack of essential services, such as the right to safety, those coming around with funding and all of that stuff. The funding oftentimes isn’t sustainable in our communities, or just isn’t enough.
There are a lot of root causes. The government really needs to consider some of these key things. We are about 25 minutes away from the next municipality, and that is Strathmore, Alberta. We don’t have the opportunity for those same resources. It is really challenging for many Indigenous communities, not only Siksika Nation.
I would like to hand it over to my colleague Minor Chief Solway to speak on her opening remarks. Thank you.
Lou Ann Solway, Minor Chief, Siksika Nation: Good morning. My name is Lou Ann Solway. My Blackfoot name is [Indigenous language spoken] which means “night attack woman.”
To reflect too, and to chime in, if you look at every First Nation, there are two policing forms that exist: children’s services and the local police, whether it be the RCMP or self-administered policing.
Those approaches really have impacted our First Nations community as well. The approaches are more like a fear tactic. Anybody who is in fear of those approaches would naturally and normally ignore a process like that.
You see that a high percentage of the population is flooding these two areas, especially women in regard to domestic violence — some type of criteria that has been recognized that they’re not capable of caring for their children.
The court system here — literally on a daily basis — creates a lot of the data where sometimes you question whether it’s necessary, or if it’s actually realistic data that could have been mediated as a known community, traditional approach of policing our people. As my colleague said, for policing that is self-administered, when we do implement that policing force, we have to make sure that we do have a full grip on how it’s being policed rather than how we’re policed today, which creates a lot of the additional challenges that we’re trying to tackle in our First Nations communities.
Those are the things that we’re up against every day that concerns us about how we are treated as a First Nations community, and as First Nations people across Canada, not just in Siksika Nation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minor Chief Solway and Minor Chief Wolf Collar.
We will now move on to questions from senators. To help keep us on time and to ensure equity for all senators, each senator will have five minutes for a question-and-answer exchange. We will have a second round of questions if time permits.
We’ll start with our deputy chair, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Good morning to all the witnesses. Thank you for coming today to speak to us about this very important topic: the creation of an independent national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, and the creation of a national Indigenous and human rights tribunal.
The theory behind this is very strong because it seems that the existing mechanisms have failed, and Indigenous people don’t have confidence in the existing mechanisms for reasons that have been explained well.
It’s important to get the foundation for these new entities correct from the start. It’s an important opportunity, when you construct these new mechanisms, to promote and protect treaty rights, Indigenous rights and human rights.
I have a concern that I would like you to address. It’s possible that these new entities could become a colonial institution. We need to incorporate protections to make sure that doesn’t happen in order to ensure Indigenous world views, ways of knowing and cultures are respected in these new entities, and perhaps a different mechanism for conflict resolution because the old model is all about litigation in courts, tribunals and such.
What are your concerns about this new model? How do you see it working in a way that respects Indigenous peoples’ values? What would you like to see, or what should we keep in mind?
Ms. Wolf Collar: Thank you for your question. It’s a good one.
Your concern is very real in regard to how we get more Indigenous involvement. One of the things that we focus on is inclusivity. I especially encourage the Indigenous women in and around my community to get involved not only with committees but also with boards — have a voice at that table.
In Siksika, we have our own peacemaking, Aiskapimohkiiks, where we come together. It’s our own mediation. If our community has conflicting issues, we go back to the elders. These are elders who have influence and a lot of respect in our community as well. There’s a term that is often used: grassroots. It’s about keeping it grassroots and keeping it community-based.
In my own experience, if it gets really political, that’s where you kind of lose focus. To maintain the integrity and keep those individuals with our elders is important. It’s really key that our elders play an important role in all of this. They have so much wisdom, knowledge and experience to give not only to Indigenous communities, but also to new politicians and to new federal people that are coming on board. A lot of important information could be shared with them, and it’s also about going back to our Indigenous ways. In Siksika, we call it “Siksika ways of knowing,” or “Blackfoot ways of knowing,” and how we address ourselves as Indigenous people. Thank you.
Mr. Sharp Adze: I would like to give a reply to that as well. A big step forward would be if Canada implements the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, in its full entirety, and gives the Indigenous people — the First Nations people of what you call Canada today — unburdened access to the United Nations. Right now, we’re crying to the people that assaulted us. We’re crying to those people for help and protection when the colonial laws and the systemic racism of Canada are impacting our people. Having UNDRIP fully implemented, without any restrictions and in its full, entire nature, would be a real and true answer to that. That would be doing things like eliminating the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, and moving into those things so that our people can have unburdened, full access to our lands. By giving us that, as well as what Minor Chief Wolf Collar mentioned, it’s about allowing people to have that full, unburdened access, and to do it our way. We’ve had the solutions since contact to help our people.
As you know, the hiring of lawyers and all of that stuff became illegal for our people. Today, we’re now able to hire lawyers. We’re able to talk to people, and we’re able to gather in groups of more than five without being reprimanded and hauled away to jail. I think that unburdened access or implementation of UNDRIP would be the First Nations peoples’ answer to this, and getting a seat at the United Nations table, specifically at a Blackfoot Confederacy level, would be a good answer for that instead of continuing that paternalistic relationship.
Another big concern is the off-loading of responsibilities. The original treaties that we had were signed with the Crown, and there is little to no answer coming from it unless they’re asking how their Indians are doing. I really think that would be something to consider. Thank you for your time.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Those are very helpful.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. Of course, I’m delighted to be meeting with my neighbours of Treaty 7 territory today. It’s nice to see you. It’s cold here, too, if it makes you feel better. I was just home for the weekend.
My question is along the lines of the Blackfoot Confederacy, including Siksika, Piikani and Kainai-Blood Tribe, filing a complaint against Indigenous Services Canada, alleging systemic discrimination against adults living with developmental disabilities on-reserve based on race, national or ethnic origin and disability.
This committee recently completed a review of Bill C-29 which would create a national council for reconciliation. One of the concerns that we heard was that disabled Indigenous people were not listed specifically in the bill as a demographic who should receive some form of representation on the council.
Do you sense a lack of interest in disability issues from the government generally, or do you believe this is still part of a broader pattern of underfunding Indigenous communities?
The other questions that I have — before I leave it to all of you to answer the best you can — are the following: What federal department does your nation primarily deal with on issues for services of disabled members? Has there been involvement from any other departments? Do you feel that the communication between the relevant departments is effective?
Ms. Solway: I would like to answer that because I have first-hand experience with a disabled aunt. Over the years of my care for her, I always found that they were kind of in a corner for any disability in our community — not just for her — as far as financial resources, or programming, or any kind of physical bodies that would guide a process where Canada was trying to provide service on the outside. We always had to go off the nation to get her services.
As far as representation in Alberta, we would get sent reps who represented the finance part or programming. There was always a change of hands over the years. For Siksika Nation, our funding was next to nil. The demand was like this in the community, but our funding was like that. As much as we lobbied as a government or as a department, we still got this, but the demand was this, and our disability was growing. Our representation from the province or from Canada was almost next to nil. We were constantly digging like badgers to see where we could go and what we could do to service our people.
Oftentimes, the nation would forfeit some dollars to assist those with a disability, which shouldn’t have been the case, from what I know over the years when I cared for my aunt, and from some of the community members who required, for example, occupational therapy. We had to go off the nation to get all those services. Most of them never had the means to financially get to where they needed to be to advance in their life or in their disability.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
The Chair: Do either of the other witnesses have anything to add?
Mr. Sharp Adze: For the situation here, a lot of our members end up falling into the category of going on Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped, or AISH. A lot of my family members are on that program. A lot of them are the descendants or the children of people who went to residential school. They are also the people who went to day school. They created those institutions to take our children away, put our children into these institutions and punish them for speaking their language and for practising their ceremonies, and they told them they were less than — then they sent them out into public with all of that abuse and trauma, and all of those learned behaviours they took on. They started teaching all of those learned behaviours to their own children, unfortunately.
Going back to my other point, they all end up on that assisted income. On our nation, we have a lot of members who have a lot of illnesses right now that confine them to wheelchairs.
We have a program on the nation called the RAMP program, and it’s to create ramps for the people who are in wheelchairs. Many of these people are needing them on an emergency basis. The turnaround time to get those ramps is very long. It has to be approved for them.
Many of these people are left having to struggle to get into their houses because all of our houses are controlled by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, or INAC, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC — the building codes — and they have built them so that we have to build a whole maze of ramps to get into the houses of our peoples. These houses are across all of Blackfoot Confederacy that our people are struggling to get into.
They were able to create these institutions to take our children and create these impacts on them. But today, those same people who were forced into those institutions now have no places to help them find the services they need. The services that they do get, as mentioned, are severely inadequate, where the demand is way up through the roof, as mentioned by Minor Chief Solway, and where the actual need is not being met for them.
Because the situation is compounding and getting worse for these people who aren’t able to get into their houses, they end up going into the Good Samaritan homes and things like that because the homes that the Aboriginal Housing Society, or AHS, is providing in our areas aren’t adequate, or they’re too costly for our people to move into them.
We have people who are accessing Jordan’s Principle right now. You all know the story of Jordan’s Principle and how that came to be. They’re able to access them under Jordan’s Principle. I would imagine they would age out of that funding pool for Jordan’s Principle, and then they have nothing when they turn of age. You have this whole thing that’s able to help the children again, but once they age out of Jordan’s Principle, they’re not able to get those full resources that they need.
For many of them, if something like Jordan’s Principle were enacted when they were children — and they never ended up to the point of Jordan’s Principle — they would be able to have those resources at that younger age. Then, the resources would already be there when they turn of age; those are some thoughts on it.
It is a big problem on the nation and across Canada. That’s just speaking to us having communities within an hour — not these fly-in communities of the North that are being impacted by these things on a much more severe basis, including the access to health care alone.
That is a major issue, and something that should be looked at. They were able to create residential schools at the snap of a finger, and get everybody into those residential schools, but they’re not able to provide those services for all the people suffering with trauma today who lived in those residential schools. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: I want to add for my colleagues, if you find yourself in southern Alberta, I highly recommend the Blackfoot Crossing, which does a fantastic job of telling the history of these people.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Sorensen.
Ms. Wolf Collar: Can I also speak to that question?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Wolf Collar: I want to add on to the importance of infrastructure that Councillor Sharp Adze mentioned — that’s one thing that’s lacking in our communities.
Oftentimes, our membership, due to the lack of funding and infrastructure, ends up moving off reserve and into homes in the city, such as the city of Calgary.
It really starts at the elementary levels. In my own experience, my grandson has been diagnosed with autism. Sadly, the resources in First Nations schools are inadequate. For him, he’s actually in a specialized school in the city of Calgary. Unfortunately, you have to live in the city to accommodate these families. The price of rent, food and all of that stuff is outrageous.
There are a number of barriers right now for many individuals who have family members living with a disability. One of the main things I’m seeing in our community is the lack of infrastructure.
We do have an elders’ lodge. Oftentimes, if the capacity is there, they could move into the elders’ lodge and receive that day-to-day care. When you look at the lifespan of disabilities, oftentimes it is categorized — Councillor Sharp Adze pointed out Jordan’s Principle, and they could access that.
Right now, I sit with the Siksika health board, trying to find a wheelchair for a young man who’s 20 years old. He’s in high school. We’re trying to figure out how to get him an updated wheelchair. Now we’re reaching out to Jordan’s Principle. At the end of the day, we’re saying, “Let’s just fundraise. Let’s figure out a way to get him a wheelchair so that he can have accessibility when he does go out.” These are some of the real things we’re experiencing in our community.
Councillor Sharp Adze, if you come to Siksika Nation, you’ll probably see a ramp on every third or fourth house. That tells a story. They always say that you could drive through a community and it could tell a story. For me, there’s a lot of lack of funding. That area has been continuously underfunded, and it’s about looking at how we could provide more opportunity for these individuals who are experiencing disability. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to Councillor Sharp Adze, Minor Chief Wolf Collar and Minor Chief Solway. It’s good for us to hear directly from you — from people with experience on the ground.
We can sometimes go up to this high level. We know that this very important Call for Justice 1.7 from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has called for the creation of a national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and tribunal.
You’ve eloquently described — and I’m sure you could describe for many more hours — all kinds of results, which Councillor Sharp Adze has described as systemic racism, the paternalistic approach and the long-term intergenerational impacts of the residential school legacy.
You’re seeing the opioid crisis. You’ve talked about domestic violence, inadequate access to all kinds of different services, courts that don’t respond and inaccessible economic opportunities, and even access to your own medicines that you need for ceremonies, as fundamental as that is. We’re hearing why there needs to be some recourse.
My questions are the following: Do you, first of all, believe that this ombudsperson and tribunal, as planned, will give you what you need for that recourse in order to right some of these wrongs, and to improve access to opportunities? My first question is: Will it?
Then, how could it? It was Minor Chief Wolf Collar who said to keep it out of politics and involve the elders. I’d like to hear about this.
First of all, can you foresee the ombudsperson and the tribunal helping you? Second, how? What are the best ways?
Thank you for starting us on that “how” — how to make it the best it could be.
Ms. Wolf Collar: To speak further about some of the systemic barriers that we experience as Indigenous people, this is one of the things that I have learned: As an Indigenous woman, oftentimes my voice is not heard — not only that, but it’s also maybe misunderstood. It’s really key that we have representation through an ombudsman and a tribunal, specifically in areas where we could come together.
There are so many things that I can go on about. I could talk about the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, and how it’s supposed to represent us, but oftentimes it doesn’t. It doesn’t speak to my nation’s needs. I know it speaks to the broader communities in Canada; however, when it comes down to some of these key components, such as the missing and murdered Indigenous women and the disabilities that we spoke about, oftentimes we need that specific recourse you spoke about.
Having opportunities to speak to an ombudsman or to go to a tribunal to address these issues — and having a voice that could reach out to the federal government, a provincial government or anywhere where policy or legislation is going to impact future generations — is needed. There are a lot of misconceptions around “We know what’s best for you,” because the Indian Act dictates that. It’s a real barrier to First Nations.
That’s my view. It’s critical that we have a voice through both the ombudsman and the tribunal. Those are key and important to start addressing some of the issues that we’re experiencing in our communities.
Ms. Solway: I want to chime in quickly. We have to remember that before contact, Indigenous people had a process, and that process was interrupted. It was an inclusive process because everybody got involved. No one was left behind, and every issue was addressed. The turnaround period was immediate. When I speak to an elder today, and if it’s an issue, I can’t wait a month; I can’t wait two weeks. The first word that comes out of their mouth is [Indigenous language spoken]. It’s immediate. When we prolong an issue, it becomes everybody’s issue.
If you look at these issues that we talk about every day in Canada, it should have been a quick turnaround and dealt with right away — whereas now, look at how many years we’ve been stuck in this process. We’re continuously discussing how we’re going to deal with these issues, whether it be opioids, missing and murdered women, disability, our children in care or our people in custody. Our people had a process for a lot of these things that we see today, but it was put aside. That process still exists today. I think it needs to be revived — put the onus back on the people so that they can help the situation rather than be set aside.
As I said earlier, the court system is a brand new process to them, and it’s a fearful process. They already had a judicial system back in the day on how they disciplined themselves, but that’s not included.
I wanted to mention that.
Mr. Sharp Adze: I think lessons can be learned, as mentioned by Minor Chief Wolf Collar, about the AFN and the parties that started the AFN originally, such as the Indian Association of Alberta. You can look at what they were trying to do at that time. They had a grassroots movement. You can also look at the constitutional express that went across Canada, moving along and picking up steam, and meeting with the First Nations people along the way when they were going to Ottawa. These are all the grassroots movements that started. They all had good intentions when they started out. Look at where they ended up with the Indian Association of Alberta from what they wanted to do. It was folded into the AFN to have the Assembly of First Nations, and look at how that ended up. The political interference that happened along the way is something to look at.
Look at the levels of bureaucracy to make an anthill into a mountain of a problem. If they addressed that at the time, when the Indian Association of Alberta was bringing these issues forward, we wouldn’t be having these conversations right now as full as they are. We’d be talking about the next steps that we’re looking at — equanimity amongst everybody else here.
I wish I had a crystal ball to say that the ombudsman and the tribunal would work, but I think leaving those best intentions and allowing the First Nations people to look after it, such as the ones around the table today and the ones who started those movements, is best.
When you look at B.C. and those starts over there with Arthur Manuel, and what his daughters are facing today with their protests against pipelines, several lessons can be learned from it. That is something to consider as well. I definitely think having that ombudsman would, at least, give us that voice. Thank you kindly.
Senator Audette: I want to say thank you to the witnesses: the minor chiefs and the councillor. Many of us participated in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. It’s our loved ones, but how do we make sure that Call for Justice 1.7 is honoured? If we can continue this discussion, I think you have experience from when you went through — or still are going through today — the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. There are things to do, or not to do, if we collectively have to propose a safe place for women — the people we work for. You have an ally here. Thank you so much. [Indigenous language spoken]
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all the witnesses for sharing your views and experiences, and for offering your personal vision on how you’d like to see things progress. Thank you for providing those substantive details that need to be considered as a development like this is undertaken.
When I think about certain approaches to developing these mechanisms or institutions, I often think of a guiding framework — something to help the beginning phases of providing that support and guidance on how to do things in a good way. You certainly provided details. I heard many of them, like inclusivity and independence, and this idea of many Indigenous communities and grassroots organizations having their own process.
I’m curious whether you could add anything further to help establish a guiding framework or certain principles that you think would be instructive to help develop something like this. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sharp Adze: Thank you for the question. I would like to bring up the topic of protocols. When you look at the signing of Treaty 7, protocols were followed, and a ceremony was practised as well. The ceremony went a long way. They smoked a pipe. They all came. It was a conversation that was intended to be the starting point of this. I think it’s about going back to that practice and adopting those principles that were learned at the signing of Treaty 7. As mentioned, if you go to the Blackfoot Crossing that is on Siksika territory right now, you’ll learn a lot about that.
It’s also crucial to keep in mind the implications of duress in doing these things, such as the signing of Treaty 7. If you look at the layout of the signing of Treaty 7, duress was put on our people when they signed that treaty in terms of having heavy artillery at the top of the hill when they were signing those documents. The conversation was “If you don’t sign those documents, there are guns up on top of the hill,” and warnings were given with having that heavy artillery and military on top of the hill, looking to see what the end result was: if we were going to sign the treaty or not.
Those principles were followed and also equality was shown at the signing of Treaty 7 with having the head chiefs. They waited for Brings Down the Sun and Many Chiefs to come from Browning, from the heartbeat territory in Montana. They were encouraged to cross the forty-ninth parallel with all of the stuff they had in tow, and they went to Blackfoot Crossing to sign that.
When you’re looking at the mechanisms, our people have those mechanisms and practices. Again, it would be crucial to step out of the way, implement UNDRIP in its entirety and follow the protocols, including the original principles, and go back to the original intention of Treaty 7 of having open dialogue that was meant there — not creating a boilerplate document to summarize it all, but taking that full spirit and intent. I think there are lessons to be learned there as well. Thank you.
Ms. Solway: At Siksika Nation, we actually already went ahead with a process that’s always existed. We call our program Aiskapimohkiiks, and it’s mediation. That’s what we are. We mediate. Somehow we still drive the mechanisms — that we had under our First Nations community — to where we need to be in an ordered and organized process for our people. That consists of the protocols, the circular form, the symbolism of how we all say that we’re all equal — nobody is higher or lower. We’re going to sit around in a circle. Our old people who hold the foundation guide and organize us instead of having a dispute. They try to move away from [Indigenous language spoken], the disputes. They try to keep things in order.
That’s the role that we’re developing and talking about today. There are existing resources and mechanisms that each First Nation should have because that’s how we functioned in the early contacts.
Today, we look at processes that are not fitting. If you look at the provincial courtrooms, it’s the structure and the settings. We’re on a drive right now to develop an Indigenous courtroom for any of the [Indigenous language spoken], the disputes, to be a more respectful and inclusive setting for them so that they can stay out of the system. It is about being proactive in the community and using the resources that are there. They’re probably better mediators than what we have today in our institutions, and it’s a more traditional approach. Thank you.
Ms. Wolf Collar: For me, it’s fairly short and simple: maintaining the sacred space, and also considering our Indigenous ways of knowing and being of who we are as Indigenous people.
The Chair: Thank you for that. The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to, again, thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them to our clerk by email within one week.
I would now like to introduce our next panel of witnesses. From the Manitoba Métis Federation, we welcome Will Goodon, Minister of Housing and Property Management; and from the Grand Council of the Crees, we welcome Mandy Gull-Masty, Grand Chief. Wela’lin. Thank you both for joining us today.
Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the senators. I invite Mr. Goodon to give his opening remarks.
William Goodon, Minister of Housing and Property Management, Manitoba Métis Federation: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to be here. My name is Will Goodon, and I’m actually sitting in on behalf of a good friend of mine: Anita Campbell, who is the spokesperson for Infinity Women Secretariat, is unable to be here today.
Today, I want to talk more about how and what Infinity Women Secretariat — as an affiliate of the Manitoba Métis Federation, or MMF — stands for and requests on this subject. Infinity Women Secretariat, or IWS, is a non-profit provincial organization that works with Métis women throughout the province of Manitoba. IWS provides programs that assist Métis women throughout each of the seven regions of the MMF, and these programs are designed to connect and empower Métis women across the province through cultural heritage, employment programs, community engagement, leadership and governance development.
IWS is also continuously improving their ability to deliver sustainable programs, and to support Métis women, girls, youth and 2SLGBTQQIA individuals in Manitoba. Métis women play a pivotal role in our families. As some of you may have heard our president speak, the historic Métis Nation is a maternal nation.
We were often characterized as being invisible amongst Indigenous peoples — and for Métis women, the cost of this invisibility is very high. Métis women continue to experience marginalization first as Indigenous women, and then further compounded by their continued invisibility. As a result, Métis women have been uniquely vulnerable to violence, but they also lack programs and supports, such as those provided to other Indigenous peoples.
MMF and IWS support the creation of a national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson. MMF and IWS would like surety that the ombudsperson has a well-established reputation for their integrity and confidentiality, and has significant understanding of organizational processes across the functions of an ombudsperson and expertise in distinctions-based approaches.
MMF would like to better understand the ombudsperson type. Will the office be an organizational ombuds, classical ombuds or a hybrid model? The ombudsman system relies heavily on the selection of an appropriate individual for the office, and on the cooperation of, at least, some effective official from within the apparatus of the state, whether this would be at the level of the federal, provincial or territorial governments. As such, MMF and IWS would like surety that the reference to government partnerships with all Indigenous peoples in the creation of the ombudsperson, as well as the national Indigenous and human rights tribunal, will include meaningful engagement and consultation with MMF. We would also like to be sure that a selected ombudsperson would not serve in any other organizational role that would potentially compromise their position as ombudsperson.
MMF and IWS support the creation of a national Indigenous and human rights tribunal. We ask that every effort be made to ensure tribunal members are selected because they have expertise or technical knowledge about the sensitive matters they will be reviewing. As with the appointment of an ombudsperson, MMF and IWS would like that every effort be made to ensure the neutrality of each tribunal member. When cases are referred to the tribunal, every effort should be made to ensure hearings are carried out in a distinctions-based manner that incorporates Métis values, traditions and culture, and that is trauma-informed. Thank you.
The Chair: I will now invite Grand Chief Mandy Gull-Masty to give her opening remarks.
Mandy Gull-Masty, Grand Chief, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and Cree Nation Government: Hello and good morning. It is a pleasure to appear once again before this committee. My name is Mandy Gull-Masty. I’m the Grand Chief of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee. The Grand Council of the Crees and the Cree Nation Government exercise a range of governmental functions aimed at promoting and protecting the rights and interests of approximately 20,000 Crees within Eeyou Istchee in northern Quebec.
The Grand Council of the Crees and the Cree Nation Government have appeared before the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and they generally support the recommendations. They have appeared before many other commissions, including inquiries and committees — in particular, the Viens Commission on relations between Indigenous peoples and certain public services in Quebec; the expert committee to support victims of sexual and domestic violence; and the select committee of the National Assembly on the vulnerability of Indigenous women and children.
We’ve also taken part in the work that has led to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it continues to follow closely the work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. All these committees and bodies have issued recommendations to reduce the vulnerability and marginalization of Indigenous women and children.
Building on these recommendations, the establishment of a new national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and tribunal would be a step in the right direction. However, real change will require more than new institutions. It will require Canada and Canadians to chart a new course and to make a seismic shift in their relations with Indigenous peoples. We must change how we, as Canada, value Indigenous peoples, especially women and children who — more than anyone else — are subject to harmful colonial policies.
Indigenous women and children continue to bear the brunt of the legacy of these policies and their intergenerational trauma and impacts in the form of poverty, addictions, conjugal violence, substandard health care and education, and lack of housing and essential services. In fact, we’ve learned from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights earlier this month that violence toward women and girls in the world has increased. This needs to change so that young women and children can live in hope and build better, stronger communities, and so that their safety, health and culture are protected and valued.
As policies are dismantled and removed, much work remains to be done. We must educate and sensitize all Canadians to eliminate systemic discrimination, to reduce the vulnerability and marginalization of Indigenous women and children and to advance reconciliation.
In principle, we support the establishment of the national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and tribunal, insofar as these new institutions add real value over and above existing structures, and insofar as they’re given the powers and resources to effectively enforce the rights of Indigenous peoples and to enact real systemic change. The Cree Nation has also called for a similar permanent human rights mechanism for Indigenous peoples in the context of implementing UNDRIP here in Canada.
Indigenous women and children experience significant barriers to reporting acts of violence and accessing services. Too often, Indigenous peoples experience discrimination from non-Indigenous service providers or front-line workers, and they’re turned away from mainstream services and sent to Indigenous-specific services that are underfunded and under-resourced. This leads to further vulnerability. This cannot be the case with respect to the new ombudsman and tribunal.
All those working with this new role and new tribunal must be sensitized and knowledgeable about the underlying facts that make Indigenous women and children particularly vulnerable to violence and intergenerational trauma resulting from the impact of residential schools and other colonial policies.
The ombudsman and tribunal must be vested with powers and resources required to address those underlying factors — not merely at a surface level, but also in those cases that are presented to them. Indigenous women and children must have unimpeded access to these new institutions, and treatment of cases must be expedited. In other words, time and money cannot be the only obstacles in these new institutions. They must also act as an oversight body that can be easily accessible by Indigenous communities when violations of their rights or persons have occurred — otherwise, the new ombudsman and tribunal will become yet another avenue where Indigenous peoples experience barriers to accessing justice.
The new ombudsman and tribunal must reflect Indigenous values, must involve Indigenous peoples, must take a trauma-informed approach and must operate within a culturally safe framework.
The new ombudsman and tribunal must also offer translation services, mental health support and support for the Indigenous workers, sensitive to their cultures and realities.
These institutions should report annually on the implementation progress by government departments and bodies of the measures to reduce the vulnerability of Indigenous women and children. This should also be done to improve accountability of the front-line services regarding measures to ensure that women and children’s complaints receive equal, fair treatment before the law, and equal justice in Canada.
It would also be appropriate for Indigenous governments, such as the Cree Nation Government, to receive annual reporting on the steps taken to ensure the security and safety of Indigenous women and children. There should also be reporting on the measures to reduce systemic discrimination, and there should be the removal of any residual racism and discrimination against women and children resulting from an era of colonial policies and practices.
Finally, to truly decolonize federal government institutions and services, the ombudsman and tribunal must be established in conjunction with the implementation of other systemic measures and changes, including those recommended by various committees and bodies that were mentioned above. Thank you. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Chief Gull-Masty. We will now move on to questions from senators. To help keep us on time and to ensure equity for all, each senator will have five minutes for a question-and-answer exchange, and, if we have time for a second round, we will go to that as well.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the two witnesses here today.
Ms. Gull-Masty, you’ve talked and given us a recipe. I agree with some of the components of your recipe. It’s an important opportunity to build the seismic change — the paradigm shift — that you’re requiring, and I see it that way as well. It’s important to get the foundation correct. One of the ways to do that is to ensure that there is an incorporation of Indigenous world views, Indigenous ways of knowing and Indigenous cultures, as well as emphasizing what I would call a mediation approach as opposed to a litigation approach. There is a lot of potential in this opportunity.
Do you have any further advice on those issues?
I also have a question for Mr. Goodon: What is the role of UNDRIP in implementing these new models?
I would like the witnesses to take a stab at answering both of those questions, please.
Ms. Gull-Masty: There are two points that I would like to raise: First and foremost, in having the role of an ombudsman, it’s important to ensure that the person that you are seeking to support you in whatever it is that you’re encountering is a reflection of you — there are capable Indigenous peoples to fulfill this role — in trying to work with those people who are coming to you as a tribunal, or who receive services from them. This is one of the things that is such a small decision, but it has such a significant impact — the sense of security that you have in speaking to somebody across the table, much like I feel here when I look around the table and I see other Indigenous peoples asking me questions. This is something that needs to be reflected in that tribunal at a foundational core.
For the role of UNDRIP, Article 7 regarding security is something that really has to be outlined if you are coming forward, and you are making a statement on something you encountered — that security post-process has to be offered to those women and children who are coming forward, and sometimes those mechanisms have to be in collaboration with either federal or provincial bodies. There has to be a strong commitment across the country to work with this tribunal, and to acknowledge that the decisions or comments that they’re making are those that should be incorporated at those levels of government as well.
Mr. Goodon: Thank you very much. Yes, on the issue of UNDRIP, one of the things that we have to always think about is that the principles in the declaration are a floor, not a ceiling. In fact, I’m going to go a little offside here, but the American declaration is being reviewed as we speak. Again, it achieves just a little bit more when it comes to Indigenous peoples’ rights.
When we consider that, documents like UNDRIP are considered aspirational a lot of times. We can never really get there because it’s not all attainable in today’s world. Some of that might be true, but, at the same time, when we look at this issue, we’re talking about real people with real lives. All Canadians should be able to agree that putting something in place to provide that protection before, during and maybe after the trauma is one of the least things we can do, considering the history of our country. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: I have a question for each of you. Grand Chief Gull-Masty, you have elaborated on and spoken to the additional challenges that Indigenous communities in the northern regions face. Can you speak to any particular challenges that we don’t hear about very often in committee regarding accessing secondary and post-secondary education, or government funding for continuing education, and — I guess to keep it on track — how might an ombudsperson be able to assist in that area?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question. First and foremost, for us, distance is probably the greatest challenge. I had to travel 850 kilometres to go to university. It was quite a distance away. I am from a very small community, with 1,800 members. Moving to Montreal for the first time was a complete shock to my system. Not only was I a young mother, but I was also moving to the big city for the first time. I was really looking for that sense of community, and I was looking for that support.
From that time to now, we’ve come a long way. There are a lot of services in place for families looking for Indigenous services for their children to maintain that connectivity.
The ombudsman really needs to advocate and bring this message forward to provincial governments: the importance of creating that space for Indigenous peoples to build an urban Indigenous community. That was something that was a saving grace for me when I was in school — having that sense of support, as well as making that connection with Indigenous women and grandmothers, and having people support me and support my children. That really allowed for my success.
The ombudsman needs to ensure that space is not only available, but also that there is security offered in that space. This is one thing that I feel is missing: Protecting young women and children in large urban spaces is something that really needs to be a priority for large cities and for provincial governments as well.
Senator Sorensen: On that topic, I know that online post-secondary education is becoming more common. I meet regularly with Athabasca University. Is that helpful, or does it depend on what you want to achieve in post-secondary education?
Ms. Gull-Masty: For my nation, COVID was a huge experiment. We were not allowed to leave the region. We switched to an online platform. We had a graduation rate of almost 90%, so it was huge. I do think that there needs to be a transition program. You cannot only learn online. There has to be that in-person component, but the first step online really helped a lot.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I have much respect for your courage — honestly, I can’t imagine.
Mr. Goodon, in my notes, you’re the Minister of Housing and Property Management.
Mr. Goodon: Right.
Senator Sorensen: I met with your president, David Chartrand, last week. If you haven’t been to the MMF offices in Ottawa, you should go; it’s beautiful.
Mr. Goodon: It’s very nice.
Senator Sorensen: I had an opportunity to do that, and really enjoyed my time in that space. I was very impressed by the investments that MMF has made in many areas. If you want to tag on your portfolio at the end of the answer, I’d be curious about that.
Most specifically, you used to fund health care and prescription drugs for MMF members. It was mentioned that Métis people have disproportionately experienced negative health outcomes due to underfunding by the government. Can you elaborate on how MMF has addressed that specific situation, and how an ombudsperson might be able to help? It’s quite a unique system that MMF has set up. I totally enjoyed my meeting, and I learned so much.
Mr. Goodon: Excellent. On the flight delayed in Toronto, Senator Klyne happened to be sitting beside me. He ran into David Chartrand the week before. Ottawa is a small town, right?
I’m here representing my colleague, but I am also quite honoured to be able to fill in at different times for my president on roles and issues that are outside of housing. Some of you may know that I’m fairly active on the Métis Nationhood file.
That being said, on the housing, there are a couple of things that we’re pushing really hard at the moment. There is a new urban, rural and northern housing announcement in this year’s budget, and there are two or three projects that we’re doing that could have some effect here. One is called Michif Manor — I hate to mention the fast-food company, but it’s like a Ronald McDonald House concept. A lot of our people live outside in rural areas. We also have transitional housing for children aging out of care. It’s brand new — up to age 24 — wraparound services.
We’re also working with IWS. Minister Campbell and I are working on transitional housing for women and children fleeing violence. Those things are needed. But the more we pull back the rug, the more we see the need for things like that.
As far as health care and the prescription scope, there is the Supreme Court case of Daniels, where the federal government has responsibilities now very clearly laid out for historic Métis Nation citizens. But working within the bureaucratic system is a little hard.
Self-funded prescriptions, I think, are now for aged 55 and over. There is a certain income limit. We use the profits from the pharmacy in order to invest in the prescriptions for a senior. Someday we’re going to be able to negotiate health services with Canada. But for now, we find innovative ways to do that. Thanks for the question.
Senator Sorensen: Just a point of clarity, we did talk a lot about the real estate that is being purchased. Is some of that being used for housing? I don’t know if we talked about that; I don’t recall that. Is that the intent of some of the real estate purchases?
Mr. Goodon: Yes, we have several different lots across —
Senator Sorensen: So I learned.
Mr. Goodon: — the province, and we are trying to look at how we can serve folks beyond borders as well because the colonial borders of Manitoba, even the forty-ninth parallel, aren’t our construct. Almost every day, I get a phone call from a community saying, “We need senior housing.” It’s something we need to continue to work on.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, grand chief, for being with us. Thank you, minister, for being with us again.
I believe I heard you correctly that IWS, MMF and the Grand Council of the Crees support the creation of the position of the ombudsperson and the tribunal. And I believe it was you, grand chief, who said “in principle.” Both of you have given us really invaluable advice and guidance in terms of what you feel is critical regarding the kind of person who would be appointed — attracted hopefully — to be that first ombudsperson, and also how things could work.
Minister Goodon, you made reference to different levels of government. Could you speak a little bit more about that? I believe it was the interaction between this new position, the tribunal and different levels of government. After that, I’ll ask a question of the grand chief.
Mr. Goodon: Yes, that’s a good point to raise again as well. Sometimes we have positions or committees where it looks like they’re going to be able to do something, but nothing ever comes of it because there are no resources, supports or capacities that are put around it.
I look at the Federal Housing Advocate; I’ve met with her a couple of times, and she’s a wonderful person. But there are no teeth in advocating, writing reports and either giving failing grades or not — not that I want to have teeth in a person or tribunal. If there are issues, most issues are transjurisdictional. There’s a little bit in the federal side — for example, if I were caught hunting, and I didn’t have my possession and acquisition licence, or PAL, that would be a federal offence, but I shot something without a provincial licence. For those kinds of things, it’s vital that we have some sort of network. I think that was the intent of that point in particular.
Senator Coyle: That’s helpful.
Grand Chief Gull-Masty, you talked about a couple of things that I’m very interested in — one was the atmosphere that needs to be created by whoever is in this new, central position in order for that atmosphere and that person to be welcoming, safe and accessible while, at the same time, also being responsive in a quick and efficient way. I’d like to hear more about how that can be clearly described and ensured in the next stages — from where we are today to when that person is in place.
I appreciate you speaking about accountability and the importance of reporting annually. You spoke about reporting annually to the federal government. You mentioned, I believe, also reporting annually to your own government.
Could you speak more about that reporting — what it should entail, who it should be to and how that should be followed?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you for the question.
The individual who undertakes this role will, I believe, face two types of very important work — one is not only creating that environment, but also understanding the uniqueness of each Indigenous nation or relationship with the province.
Of course, I come from a nation that is within Quebec. We have a very unique relationship with the provincial government. Being able to understand, gauge or keep the pulse of that relationship will be something that should be at the forefront for the ombudsperson because you are able to not only support the individual who is coming to seek service from you, but you are also able to provide recommendations to a provincial government that can be implemented.
I believe that the challenge is for provincial governments to accept the decision-making process. There has to be a link with funding; I think that’s a critical tool. For example, my province needs to understand that there is a position for the non-Quebec population. Indigenous peoples are a huge group within that population. There have to be indicators for measuring the success of their feedback and the response to these members. A critical component of that is the specific funding links that are offered.
If there is a decision taken by the ombudsperson, for example with Quebec, there has to be a link in a federal budget that indicates there are more resources available to this province to target this — whatever the outcome is — if it’s at the provincial scale. That needs to be the same for large cityscapes as well.
There are places like Montreal and Quebec City that need to integrate beyond a Québécois identity to acknowledge and understand that there are Indigenous peoples who come from — and have always existed in — those spaces.
The ombudsman has a very challenging but very interesting role. I’m hoping to see this come to fruition. I’m hoping there are teeth given to him, but giving him the authority to make those financial links and address that mechanism is something that will assist them.
Senator Audette: It could be giving her teeth also.
[Translation]
In French, it can be a woman or a man.
Thank you very much for your messages, and for clarifying what we should and shouldn’t be doing. Thanks to my colleague, Senator Coyle, you answered the question about finding a way to form genuine partnerships with the provinces and territories. Our mandate is to conduct an examination, and we want to give teeth to the report by the minister’s special representative, Jennifer Moore Rattray. She will be submitting her report soon — by Christmas, I would think — on what the different models might look like.
I am surrounded by senators who have past experience as premiers or ministers in their province, or mayors in their territory. Considering the vastness of Canada, I would like to know if you can give any examples of official relations between the Office of the Ombudsman or the ombudsman’s delegate and the Independent Investigations Office or other human rights organizations or commissions. Have you seen such models before? Could there be things that we might include in a future bill?
I expect to be here for a long time and I hope we will get a bill. This is the first time I have heard the suggestion that we should ensure accountability and report back to the chiefs. I find it intriguing. Can you tell me about it?
Ms. Gull-Masty: It is true that Canada is very big and includes many nations. The province of Quebec alone has 11. However, each nation is quite different. I would possibly like to see a panel created that includes many departments to generate a better understanding of the issues in education, employment, security and youth or teens. This panel could be open to the public and would gather ideas and suggestions on programs to recommend to the Office of the Ombudsman.
I think we need an open approach, not just recommendations. The office has to be open to the public so that it can receive recommendations about services or programs that are useful to people.
Something of great importance to me and my nation is follow-up on recommendations. I would like to see a panel in each of the provinces that scores the work accomplished by the ombudsman, provincial governments and the federal government on the topics addressed in this forum. It would serve as a kind of feedback loop.
We really need to understand that people who use this service also have the right to give it a score that reflects how things are going and how they feel. Are things working right? Do any of the results of this process stand out more than others?
[English]
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much to the witnesses. I find this extremely interesting. My background is working with women’s issues and domestic violence.
What I heard you say clearly is that the organization — and what’s going to happen with the ombudsperson — would need to be culturally safe and trauma-informed.
For the people who are listening, what would be some of the issues that women and children would face? How would they build trust? I know that when trust is taken from women and children, it’s hard to gain that.
Do you have any insight on how that process would begin? What are some of the issues that they would face, and that they need to be looking at?
Ms. Gull-Masty: For me, one of the biggest issues for women and children is security. I think this is the biggest challenge. I have two daughters, both in their early twenties. I tell them, “If you go out, you have to be careful. If you get in a taxi, there’s a high chance that you won’t arrive at your destination.” That’s a harsh lesson to have to teach your daughters in this modern day.
For me, it’s about knowing that the lack of security comes from a lack of response and services when you’re filing a police statement, reporting something, speaking to a social worker or going into a medical setting. That is something that confounds me. There are these preconceived notions of Indigenous women that we’re up to something or we’ve done something. We are not truly perceived as bringing forward a statement in a way that we’ve been victimized or that we’re believed.
I think that security for women and children is such a high priority. There does need to be so much more work in terms of sensitizing people to understand that when somebody is bringing something forward — in either a medical or police setting — you’re there to listen, and you have to leave those preconceived notions at the door. Regardless of what the situation is, you are there, first and foremost, to provide service and support to that person.
There needs to be a lot of investment in that. Without critical investments in these types of trainings, I believe the ombudsman’s recommendations will be hollow because they are there to point to something that is a serious issue. As governments, both provincial and federal, they are obliged to do the work to ensure that when something is pointed to, everybody is looking at it through the same lens.
Senator Hartling: Mr. Goodon, did you have anything to add from the group you’re representing?
Mr. Goodon: I appreciate the question very much as well, senator. As I said earlier, I wear different hats. I’m going to talk briefly about the importance of safe, secure housing.
I feel very fortunate to be able to do the things that I do, knowing that the need is a thousand times more than we can ever meet. If you have a safe, warm and dry place, children do better in school and education in the long term, and the family is more secure — and some of the issues that our families and communities are facing are alleviated, but they won’t disappear.
A friend of mine told me once — back in the 1980s or 1990s, so it’s different today — “Why do people get so confused that our community’s politics are like Third World countries when we live in Third World conditions?”
Going back to the ombudsperson, being community-driven and community-responsive is also important. There needs to be some sort of network. These networks are important across jurisdictions. It’s like having the ability to be judged by your peers if you’re before a court. The people who know us best are the people who know what our needs are.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Grand Chief Gull-Masty and Minister Goodon, for your testimony, for coming before us and for sharing your views on this important question of the ombudsperson and tribunal.
I believe, Minister Goodon, you mentioned the word “integrity,” and that this process has to have a certain sense of integrity.
Grand Chief Gull-Masty, thank you for sharing the story about your travels to get an education in Montreal, and for sharing that sense of community that was beneficial to you and, I would imagine, beneficial to many people who are travelling far from their communities.
Minister Goodon, you talked about the process being community-driven and community-responsive. When I think about community and about a mechanism or an institution like a tribunal, I think about the importance of establishing good relationships to allow for recommendations and to have, at least, some hope of having some substance to it. Grand Chief Gull-Masty, you mentioned that we don’t want to have hollow recommendations.
Keeping in mind the sense of community, the word “integrity” and the reliance on developing good relationships, is there anything you would like to add that comes to mind?
Ms. Gull-Masty: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to meet you, senator.
I’ve seen so many progressive things come out of the federal government. Recently, I feel like there have been huge steps forward to respond to Indigenous peoples. The key word that you’re using is “integrity.” That integrity component is essential for First Nations. I’m looking to ensure that although there are huge steps being taken, there has to be that component of measuring the response, measuring the success and celebrating the success.
There’s always a focus on the huge cost of implementing or undertaking something, but you can only justify costs if you’ve measured why you’ve assumed those costs. I don’t think this process is something that’s hollow. I do believe there has to be a mechanism in place that will allow for you to identify key indicators of the success of the role, and having that independent body’s report and comment on how things have shifted in their landscape and how their narrative is being heard differently. I believe that’s important as well. That takes it right back to integrity, knowing that the structure you have created is responding to something and is having an impact.
This is something that I’m looking for, but I’m also looking to celebrate the successes. This is what allows First Nations people to know that things are changing for them, that their voices are being heard, that data-driven measurements are in place and that they can celebrate the success — not only for themselves, but with Canadians at large. I think that everybody has to succeed when somebody is advancing or moving forward.
The Chair: The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to, again, thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. I remind you that if you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk within one week from today.
Thank you, senators. This brings us to the end of our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)