---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 4, 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 Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples.

Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome all of you and our viewers across the country who may be watching on sencanada.ca to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting today in the Senate of Canada Building, which is located on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

My name is Brian Francis. I am a senator from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the committee.

I’d like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting:

Senator Daniel Christmas, deputy chair; Senator David M. Arnot; Senator Michèle Audette; Senator Patrick Brazeau; Senator Mary Coyle; Senator Nancy J. Hartling; Senator Sandra M. Lovelace Nicholas; Senator Kim Pate; and Senator Scott Tannas. Senator Pat Duncan from Yukon is also here today.

Today, we are here to study Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. With us today are the former chief commissioner and the commissioners of the national inquiry: The Honourable Judge Marion Buller, the Honourable Senator Michèle Audette, Brian Eyolfson and Qajaq Robinson.

The former chief commissioner and commissioners will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes each. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately three minutes per senator. I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time. I will also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the three-minute period for questions and answers.

I remind everyone that during the question-and-answer period, committee members will be given priority. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. They will be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat.

I will now ask Ms. Buller to begin her remarks.

Marion Buller, Former Chief Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m coming to you today from the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam people.

Today, I will start with an overview of the work of the national inquiry; former commissioner Eyolfson will talk about the principles for interpretation of the final report and our key findings of fact; former commissioner Robinson will talk about the role of the Senate in implementation of our Calls for Justice; and our former colleague and your colleague, Senator Audette, will talk about other relevant areas for senators and concluding remarks.

Turning now to an overview of the national inquiry, I’ll start with our terms of reference. This was the first truly national inquiry. We had orders-in-council and terms of reference in every province and territory as well as federally. The mandate of the national inquiry commenced on September 1, 2016 and ended on June 30, 2019.

Our terms of reference were quite lengthy but can be summarized as requiring us to inquire into all systemic causes of all types of violence against Indigenous women and girls. We, of course, were required to make recommendations to end that violence and also to make recommendations regarding commemoration of lost loved ones.

Now turning to the work of the national inquiry, we heard from almost 2,400 people. That was made up of family members of lost loved ones, survivors of violence, experts, traditional knowledge keepers and elders.

We heard from people in hearings, both publicly and privately, from coast to coast to coast. We also had staff members who were statement gatherers. They were people who went to small, remote areas to gather the truths of family members and survivors in locations where we couldn’t hold public or private hearings. This was one of the very many innovative measures that we took in the work that we did do. And just so you are aware, there are some other examples —

The Chair: Sorry, Ms. Buller, we don’t have any translation.

My apologies, Ms. Buller. You may continue.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just about to tell you about the other areas of innovation and the work that we did do, and I’ll be brief.

First of all, our perspective was families first. We had a National Family Advisory Circle to advise us in what we did and how we did our work. There was no cross-examination of family members and survivors of violence at hearings. Out of respect for the territories of Indigenous people, we went only where we were invited and welcomed by local Indigenous people.

Oaths on bibles were not mandatory for witnesses. We left it up to each individual witness how they wished to bind their conscience. We included two-spirit and gender-diverse people in our work because of the additional forms of violence that they face. And we included survivors of violence because we believed that we could learn from them, especially about how to end violence. And we did all of our work in local ceremony.

We had advisory groups, specifically with respect to Métis, Inuit, two-spirit, or 2S, gender-diverse and Quebec issues. We also held round table discussions on the same topics with people from a variety of backgrounds so we could dig even deeper into the issues faced by Métis, Inuit, gender-diverse 2S people and the people in Quebec.

We had a research team that synthesized over 900 pieces of relevant literature and continued to do our own research into the issues of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and 2S people.

We produced our interim report entitled Our Women and Girls are Sacred in November of 2017. We also produced an education guide entitled Their Voices Will Guide Us, and that was to help teach about the issues of MMIWG2S, missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, from the kindergarten level to post-secondary level.

We released our final report, Reclaiming Power and Place, in June of 2019. It’s actually made up of four volumes. Two volumes are the main body of the report, plus two supplementary reports, one on the issues faced by Indigenous people in Quebec and also a supplementary report on the issue of genocide.

We have recommendations called “Calls for Justice.” There are 230 of them, but they are aimed at specific audiences. I suppose the largest audience would be governments — that’s all governments, including Indigenous governments. And the Calls for Justice are broken down even further in each category.

Then we also made Calls for Justice aimed at the media and social influencers, transportation and hospitality industry, extractive and development industries, educators, child welfare, health services, policing and the justice system, Corrections Canada, and then Calls for Justice for all Canadians to work on.

We also made Calls for Justice specific to Inuit, Métis and 2S issues.

The Chair: I’m sorry, Ms. Buller, but we have one minute left.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Quebec report follows a similar format.

Now over to former commissioner Eyolfson to talk about the principles for interpretation and our findings of fact. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Buller. Mr. Eyolfson next, please continue.

Brian Eyolfson, Former Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everybody. I’m coming to you from unceded Algonquin territory in what is now eastern Ontario, and I’m just going to talk briefly about some of our findings and the principles for change.

The national inquiry made numerous findings that are set out through the final report.

Chapters 5 to 8 of the final report, which address the four main areas of culture, health, security and justice, have numerous findings set out at the end of each chapter. We also made findings with respect to particular industries, institutions and services, which are set out in the deeper dive sections of the report.

We also made a number of key or overarching findings in the report, which are set out at pages 174 and 175 of volume 1b. To briefly summarize those key findings, the first overarching finding is that the significant, persistent and deliberate pattern of systemic, racial and gendered human-rights and Indigenous-rights violations and abuses, perpetuated historically and maintained today by the Canadian state, are the causes of the disappearance, murders and violence experienced by Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people, or two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual people and constitute genocide.

Related to this, we also found that an absolute paradigm shift is required to dismantle colonialism within Canadian society and from all levels of government and public institutions.

Second, we found that Canada has signed and ratified many international declarations and treaties that affect Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit and trans people’s rights, protections, security and safety, but Canada has failed to meaningfully implement provisions of these legal instruments.

Third, we found that the Canadian state has displaced Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA people from their traditional roles in governance and leadership and continues to violate their political rights.

Fourth, we found that Indigenous self-determination and self-governance in all areas of Indigenous society are required to properly serve and protect Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit and trans people. This is particularly true in the delivery of services.

All of these findings informed the Calls for Justice in the report. In addition, witnesses who shared their truths with us explained that there are many important principles that must inform the implementation of the Calls for Justice in order for them to be effective and meaningful. Those principles for change informed the work of the national inquiry and should be considered important guiding principles for interpreting and implementing the Calls for Justice. The principles are set out, commencing at page 169 of volume 1b of the report. I will go through what they include.

The first principle is a focus on substantive equality and human and Indigenous rights. Throughout the Calls for Justice, we maintain that all actions and remediation to address root causes of violence must be human- and Indigenous-rights-based, with a focus on substantive equality, or true equality, of outcomes for Indigenous people.

The second principle is a decolonizing approach that’s rooted in Indigenous values, philosophies and knowledge systems.

The third principle is the inclusion of families and survivors. It’s important that the implementation of the Calls for Justice includes the perspectives and participation of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people with lived experience, including the families of the missing and murdered and survivors of violence.

The fourth principle is that there must be self-determined and Indigenous-led solutions and services, which must be led by Indigenous governments, organizations and people. Also, the exclusion of Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and trans people, elders and children from the exercise of Indigenous self-determination must end.

The fifth principle is the need to recognize distinctions. As Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people come from diverse First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, the Calls for Justice must be interpreted and implemented in an equitable and non-discriminatory way that addresses the needs of distinct Indigenous peoples and takes into account factors that make them distinct, including self-identification, geographic or regional-specific information, residency, and a gendered lens and framework that ensures that impacts on women, girls, and two-spirit and trans individuals are taken into account.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Eyolfson. I just wish to inform you that you have one minute left.

Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The sixth principle for change is cultural safety that goes beyond the idea of cultural appropriateness and demands the incorporation of services and processes that empower Indigenous peoples. The creation of cultural safety requires, at a minimum, the inclusion of Indigenous languages, laws and protocols, governance, spirituality and religion.

The seventh principle, which is very important, is taking trauma-informed approach that involves incorporating knowledge of trauma into all policies, procedures and practices of solutions and services. This is crucial to the implementation of the Calls for Justice.

Thank you very much. I’ll now turn it over to my colleague, former commissioner Qajaq Robinson.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Eyolfson. I’ll now ask Ms. Robinson to please begin.

Qajaq Robinson, Former Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you for having me today. I’m coming to you from the unceded Algonquin territory in the National Capital Region. It’s a tremendous honour to be here and to be able to share with you our knowledge and perspectives.

I am going to be speaking to you today a little bit about implementation. My colleagues, former commissioners Buller and Eyolfson, have shared with you an overview of our process, report, findings, as well as very important principles for change and implementation.

When we talk about the implementation of the Calls for Justice, it’s very important to look at it in a holistic way. You can’t look at it as a list of 231-plus Calls for Justice that need to be checked off, like a checklist or a to-do list. It needs to be looked at in a way that looks at the overall objectives and the purpose and the hope they carry.

Yes, the Calls for Justice are to address the root causes of violence and the oppression of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ+ people, to address the violence and the oppression they are subjected to, but fundamentally it’s to ensure that Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQ+ people live lives that are dignified.

I’m going to share with you the vision that the National Family and Survivors Circle so eloquently put forward when they shared with the country their vision for an implementation plan.

Our vision is for all Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people to live dignified lives, where we are free to fully assert and exercise our Indigenous Rights, including Inherent and Treaty, and our Human Rights, where we will continue to reclaim our Power and Place within our lands, territories, and within our Nations, Peoples, and communities, where we are valued and respected, and live with dignity and substantive equality in Canada.

These questions then arise: How do you measure that? What does that look like?

In this nation, we’re not good at measuring and identifying what a dignified life looks like. Sadly, we focus on negative statistics, and we think that that’s the benchmark. Too often, we ask the wrong questions, and we don’t engage with the right people when we’re trying to understand how effective and meaningful actions are, but when it comes to the implementation of the Calls for Justice, that’s fundamentally important. They will be words on paper unless we ensure that they are effective, meaningful and felt in the lives of Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse peoples, as well as in their families, communities and nations.

This is why Call for Justice 1.1 is fundamental. It speaks to the independent mechanisms for reporting and measuring progress, effectiveness and meaningful implementation. A key element is the annual reports to Parliament.

This is where we submit that although you are not the Parliament, the Senate also plays a role. You can play a role in advancing implementation by holding the Government of Canada and government agencies to account as this speaks to living up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Calls for Justice that speak to them. You can have them come before you, as we have, to share with you and to demonstrate not only their actions but also how their actions are advancing the implementation of the Calls for Justice as well as how their actions are compliant with domestic and international human rights and Indigenous rights.

They must do more than show you the budgets they’ve spent and the line items attached. They must be prepared to show you how it has affected people’s lives. You must learn to understand, and they must demonstrate, how their actions and decisions have informed and enhanced the lives of people. It’s not enough to show that the crime statistics are down. You have to show how people’s lives are improved, how wellness and self-determination have been advanced and what a dignified life looks like. For this, we submit to you that it’s fundamentally important to ensure that to come to understand the impacts of actions and measures, you need to hear from the people most impacted and that’s families and survivors, the Indigenous women, girls and 2S peoples who have been impacted, the people whose lives this work was designed to impact.

A dignified life where you are valued and respected and where there is substantive equality goes way beyond statistics. It goes way beyond crime statistics and the rates of incarceration. It goes way beyond what is often looked at, so I call on you today — we all call on you today — to use your role as senators to hold the government to account, to look at what is behind the rhetoric and the written reports and to see what it looks like in the communities. When and where you can, go to communities, reach the people impacted, see families, see front-line workers and meet with the Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse folks. Let them tell you what a dignified life with substantive equality and equity in Canada looks and feels like for them. Nakurmiik.

[Translation]

Hon. Michèle Audette, Former Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: [Indigenous language spoken ]

Thank you, honourable colleagues, for inviting great people who have a special place in my heart, because they mentored me in this commission of inquiry, which was one of the most difficult experiences of my life in my short time on Earth. Many thanks to all the families and survivors who had the courage to share their truth once again or far too often. Thank you to those who shared their truth for the first time.

Their words shifted from being an account to a truth. That truth was expressed in such a way that for four of the commissioners it became obvious that beyond recommendations, this is about legal imperatives. A legal lens was put in the right place thanks to the accounts of these women.

As a country, we have the great responsibility of responding on a daily basis.

I feel fortunate to have been wearing the moccasins of senator for some time now. What are we going to do to have an influence and ensure that the federal government, the provinces and territories bring in accountability mechanisms and tools to ensure — We know that the call was honoured, we know that the call does not seem to have moved forward. Why? We need this. How do we ensure all this accountability and this monitoring? How do we monitor and improve things? The ombudsmen are important to many families and to me. The thing that is equally important to me, as a mother surrounded by survivors, is to remember that women have asked us many times to put them at the centre of the process of reflection, analysis, debate or creating institutions. They asked us to include them from day one and throughout the process.

I invite you, honourable colleagues, to ask questions to the Government of Canada, the board that has the mandate to implement the action plan and the Government of Canada departments. Of course, invite other governments that have already put forward Calls for Justice. I am curious to hear them. It is our responsibility.

One of our common responsibilities is to ask real questions. Why is this taking so long? Why have we not already honoured most of the Calls for Justice? If it is done, then let us explain ourselves. There are some emotionally intelligent people in the Senate and outside the Senate. These are women who rattled the country in 2019 when the report was tabled. These are women and women’s organizations that make sure to ask the right questions within the federal government. I am curious to hear them and we should be curious too.

In closing, when we put measures and initiatives in place, do they really end up in the community? Do they really have an impact on the village or the place where people are not used to going? It is very important. I am a former president of the Native Women’s Association of Canada and Quebec Native Women. Funding is important, but we also have to support women like Pauktuutit is going to in the North, in the regions of eastern Canada and in the Maritimes, places that people are at least used to. In a former life, I noticed that the easiest path is often the most popular.

I am thinking of all the women who save lives and all the women who guide lives.

I would like to ask government people these questions to find out if they are truly honouring the Calls for Justice.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Audette. Now, we will move to the question-and-answer session. I will ask the first question. Then, we’ll move to Senator Arnot.

This is for all three of you to answer if you would like. Some of my question has been answered. I’d like to ask it again for clarity’s sake.

Our committee intends to undertake a study in the fall focused on the federal implementation of the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Where do you think this committee could add the most value? Should we, for example, focus broadly on the response of the federal government before and after the final report or on the implementation of the specific Calls for Justice, and if so, which ones?

Ms. Buller: It’s important to focus on the implementation. The work has been done, and it’s time to accept the work that has been done and to move on towards implementation, but I certainly welcome other comments from my colleagues.

Ms. Robinson: I would echo Chief Commissioner Buller’s comments. It’s time to look at how governments and government agencies are implementing. I alluded to one of the challenges which is how do you measure success? What are the indicators of successful, meaningful implementation? I’m not going to identify which Calls for Justice need to be focused on as being priority, to see which have been implemented, but I think there are some fundamental Calls for Justice that speak to implementation, accountability in implementation and oversight of implementation. Those are really important to call on the government to demonstrate to you how implementation is being effected and measured, and there needs to be some critical opinions and views, and particularly the views of Indigenous women’s organizations, brought forward as well with respect to that.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Robinson.

Mr. Eyolfson: In looking at the implementation, it’s important to look at what’s happening at the ground level, so consulting with family members, survivors and grassroots organizations to get their perspectives in terms of the implementation and what positive impacts, if any, are being made by the implementation. It’s very important to consult with those groups.

The Chair: Thank you. Senator Audette, any comments?

Senator Audette: Everything was said and well said, thank you.

Senator Arnot: Thank you, I speak to you today from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the heart of Treaty 6 Territory and the traditional homeland of the Métis. I want to thank the commissioners for coming today and for their courageous work. It is very comprehensive, and it is such a critical report for reconciliation in this country.

I’d like to focus on the creation of independent institutions for accountability, which have been spoken to by some of the commissioners already. The fundamental goal that you’re highlighting there is to hold the executive branch of government accountable for their actions and the implementation of the Calls for Justice, which is quite laudable and I think the right way to go.

One of the concerns I have is I suspect government is reluctant to create these independent bodies. My question then to everyone is what has the response been by governments to the creation of these independent institutions? Very specifically, what do you think the Senate can do to assist in getting those institutions, which are independent, maybe human rights tribunals, ombudspersons, et cetera, implemented? I look forward to the answers.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, Senator Arnot. What is the government’s response? I don’t know. To be honest with you, after June 30, 2019, nobody reports to me or any of the other commissioners, so the only way we can find out is like any other citizen in Canada and that’s to do Google searches from time to time. I don’t know, and it’s difficult to find out.

What can the Senate do to assist? There are many ways that the Senate can put very subtle pressure on the executive branch. Embarrassment is a good form of subtle pressure, but I’ll certainly defer to my colleagues and their comments. Thank you, senator.

Ms. Robinson: I’ll add to that. From my Google searches, I can see that there is a discussion around the establishment of a national Indigenous human rights ombudsperson as well as a tribunal. In terms of what the government’s view is on this, I don’t know. It is not exactly front page when it comes to the action plan that was put forward in June.

That said, in relation to what the Senate can do, I think that there are a couple of things. In your work and in your conclusions of your studies, you may find yourself in a position to also echo that Call for Justice. You also have the capacity to originate legislation from your chambers as well and that may be something worth considering. It’s anticipated these bodies would be creatures of legislation. That said, their establishment and the content of the legislation — I would recommend to you — need to be co-developed with Indigenous peoples for it to have the respect and buy-in of the Indigenous community.

So those are two opportunities that I think rest at your feet.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Robinson.

Senator Coyle: Thank you so much to all of the commissioners for giving your testimony here today. I have a couple of questions, and maybe I’ll just put them both out.

Chief Commissioner Buller, you said something that just triggered my interest. As the central people and leaders in bringing forward this report to government, but also to all Canadians, you do not have a feedback loop from government on what government is doing. I’d like to ask you and your colleagues what you would see as a potential ongoing role for the commissioners in this process, as oversight is obviously a critical point now that we’re at the implementation stage. That’s the first question.

Second, as we pursue, hopefully, a more in-depth study this fall, Mr. Eyolfson, you’ve mentioned the absolute need for a paradigm shift to dismantle colonialism. We’ve heard from Ms. Robinson, where you’ve spoken about really needing to identify and give life to this idea of what a dignified life is, one with substantive equality. So that’s an outcome we’re looking for.

Do you have guidance for us on how to determine, not just what the government has done or promises to do, but qualitatively, how will we know we are there? Who is doing work on defining what is that dismantling of colonialism, which would then lead to that dignified life as you’ve described? Thank you.

Ms. Buller: I’ll briefly address the oversight issue, Senator Coyle, and our roles or potential roles. I suppose none of us are looking for new jobs, but we all feel very deeply about the issues of MMIWG2S and have a wealth of knowledge. I’ll leave it at that. I can’t make commitments for anyone, but this is work near and dear to us. And I’ll defer to my colleagues for the answers to your remaining questions. Thank you.

Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Senator Coyle, for your question. With respect to a paradigm shift, throughout the national inquiry, we heard so many truths and so much evidence about the significant role of colonialism through history and continuing today as well as all forms of systemic discrimination against Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people. What is really required is a real shift in organizational structures. One thing that we learned is that families and survivors and those with lived experience —

The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, Senator Coyle, your time is up.

I remind senators that you have three minutes for question and answer. I know it’s not a lot of time, but we are on a time crunch here so we have to keep things moving. There are a number of senators to ask questions yet.

Senator Brazeau: Thank you to all of you for being with us this afternoon. Also thank you for the tireless and difficult work that you have done on behalf of Indigenous peoples and all Canadians throughout this country. I’ll keep my question very brief.

Obviously, the commission had a mandate to work with respect to the work that you all conducted and did. It’s one thing to hold the government to account, and that’s always very important, but I would like to know if there are any themes or any issues that you were not able to deal with, with the work of the commission, because the government would not allow that to be included in the parameters of your work. If there is anything that perhaps this committee could assist with if it wasn’t touched upon, that’s essentially what I would like to know from any or all of you. Thank you.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, senator. I’ll be brief. It wasn’t so much that our mandate didn’t allow us to do certain types of work; it was the timeframe in which we had to do our work that limited what we could do. I know we wanted to dig deeper into corrections, as well as human trafficking, the sex industry and also the impact of extractive industries. Over to you, my colleague.

Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you for your question, Senator Brazeau. In addition to what Chief Commissioner Buller said, I think that in addition to the themes she mentioned that we didn’t get a chance to dig deeper into, there are just places we didn’t get to go to that invited us and wanted us to come so that families and survivors could share their truth with us. We didn’t get to go to every place that we would have liked to have gone, unfortunately.

[Translation]

Senator Audette: I am going to intervene quickly.

Senator Brazeau, one of the challenges was to go meet each government in each province to ask the questions that had been submitted to us by the families, survivors and witnesses and to meet our First Nations, Métis and Inuit governments to have deeper discussions about the situation in the territories. If we had had enough time to do so, I believe that would have been part of the very important chapters of the report of the commission of inquiry.

[English]

The Chair: I remind witnesses that they can send any answers they couldn’t give or follow-up documents to the clerk after the meeting if you don’t have time today.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I am speaking from unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Wolastoqiyik Nation. Was New Brunswick invited to participate in the Calls for Justice? Anyone can answer.

Ms. Buller: Senator, yes, we were able to have our hearings in New Brunswick. We were able to receive submissions from all provinces and territories and we were able to — I can’t remember now, specifically, if we met with government leaders in New Brunswick, but certainly the opportunities were there for dialogue throughout. Perhaps my colleagues will remember more specifically.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.

Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Senator Lovelace Nicholas. I would like to point out that the first portion of our Calls to Justice is Calls for Justice for all governments. They’re Calls for Justice for not only the federal government, but for provincial and territorial governments as well as municipal and Indigenous governments in many examples. Some are just for provincial and territorial governments as well. That’s set out in the Calls for Justice.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.

Senator Hartling: Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming and speaking to us today. The more that I learn about this, the more upsetting it is and the more difficult it is emotionally. For me, I’m not a survivor, but I do feel impacted by this.

As you’re going through this and as we’re going through learning and hopefully making changes, in regard to the women and the families at the heart of this whole process, those with lived experience, how do we protect and help them from being re-traumatized, or when they are re-traumatized, what are some things that we can do? Do you have any suggestions of what we might put in place? I don’t know if you have, but I’m going to ask the question. Thank you.

Ms. Buller: Senator, thank you for caring so much. I think making resources available for counselling and making them immediately available is very important and that your dealings with family members and survivors is done from a trauma-informed perspective.

My colleagues, anything further?

Senator Audette: Yes, Senator Hartling. They probably also have good suggestions. They know people, they have families that support them or elders or people that they trust, so it also has to come from them instead of saying, we will put a unit for them. So we have to be very open-minded and open-hearted about whom they trust. Of course, we explain, we need to be transparent and make sure that even after they speak, we always check, making sure that it’s okay.

Senator Hartling: Thank you.

Ms. Robinson: I’ll add to that that what we’ve come to understand about trauma and protecting from re-traumatization, it’s not necessarily the discussion of these issues that is the challenge, it’s how people are treated and the autonomy and agency they have in processes. The importance of what Senator Audette has mentioned about that reciprocity of coming to an understanding of how to proceed, of having options and, of course, resources. You have to meet people where they are at and help define processes together.

Senator Hartling: Thank you.

Senator Pate: Like you, I join you from the shores of the Kichesipirini, the unceded unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. I want to thank all of you, commissioners, for the incredible and vital work you did for all of us, and thank you for bringing forward and continuing to monitor what is happening.

I know you mentioned at the outset that you think this has to all be looked at together, and I appreciate you mentioning that there were many who wanted a deeper dive into some of the issues like corrections and some of the other areas that contribute to the particularly horrific statistics that you also mentioned don’t tell the whole picture, but certainly do provide a window into what is happening.

I’d like to focus on Call for Justice 4.5 in particular, the call for a national guaranteed annual income. I also sit on Finance and when the government appeared before us, despite the Call for Justice and our request for information from them, their indication was that they were working with the Assembly of First Nations and other First Nations government partners to develop a needs-based approach to the existing income assistance program for people living on reserve. Depending upon how such a program is designed, we know it could fall well short of the livable and unconditional type of program you’re recommending.

Were any of you, as commissioners — or, to your knowledge, any of the families — consulted by Indigenous Services Canada as they were developing this process?

Second, are there ways you would recommend that would strengthen this, in addition to what you’ve already said? That is just another opportunity for you to add more, if there’s anything more you would like to add.

Thank you again for all of your work.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, Senator Pate. Personally, I was not consulted for the process at any stage.

Regarding what we have to do next, we have to do that paradigm shift that former commissioner Eyolfson talked about in order to move away from giving to programs, projects and Band-Aids and accept the fact that we have to move Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people out of the margins and into mainstream Canadian society. How are we going to do that? Guaranteed annual income that’s livable, that’s geographically specific and that makes sense. Cherry-picking just isn’t going to work.

Thank you.

Ms. Robinson: I was also not consulted or engaged at all by Indigenous Services on this point, and I echo former commissioner Buller’s sentiments on this.

Piecemeal implementation of this Call for Justice in different geographical areas is also something that just raises alarm bells for me. You will be eligible for it if you live on reserve, if you’re status or “if,” “if,” “if.” There can’t be “ifs.”

That has to be looked at in the context of our legacy of colonial violence and the measures that were intentional to strip Indigenous communities, especially women and gender-diverse folks, from their positions of power, including economic positions, wealth, and their ability to be self-sustaining.

There is an element of Call for Justice 4.5 that speaks to correcting a wrong — a theft of wealth, if you will — and that can’t be lost in the discussion and it merely be looked at as this contemporary economic issue.

Senator Christmas: I’m speaking to you from the Mi’kmaq community of Membertou, Nova Scotia, where I incidentally first met former commissioners Robinson and Audette when they visited our community and met with our families.

In the interests of time, I’ll direct my question to former commissioner Senator Audette.

One Call for Justice recommends the establishment of a national Indigenous and human rights ombudsman with authority in all jurisdictions as well as a national Indigenous and human rights tribunal. Can you tell me why this particular Call to Action was put forward? What was its background, and what were you trying to achieve by having brought forth this Call to Action?

[Translation]

Senator Audette: Thank you very much, Senator Christmas.

We have had many commissions of inquiry, many royal commissions, many studies and a whole lot of research where plans for the community were proposed. Every time, we are ordered — and this time is no different — to proceed with an inquiry into a great number of issues without knowing what happens afterward.

Personally, at my age — I am now 50 — I believe that the commissions of inquiry absolutely must be able to use a mechanism set out in the Inquiries Act so that a monitoring, control and surveillance mechanism can be activated as soon as a commission of inquiry has ended.

This is about moral, spiritual and human investments; some will say that this is expensive, but once the government shelves all of this, then we have to start all over again.

I think that a monitoring obligation is important and fundamental. This obligation also gives us a sense of security, if we are called to deal with an ombudsman or a tribunal on indigenous rights in order to make ourselves understood. It is important.

[English]

Senator Christmas: Are there other comments from other former commissioners?

Ms. Robinson: Another fundamental element is the availability of recourse and how challenging achieving recourse for human-rights and Indigenous-rights violations has been in our court system.

We’ve had some great judgments, but we’ve also had many judges, who are used to dealing with Criminal Code offences, who have had to deal with Indigenous-rights issues because a harvesting case came before them. Those aren’t the spaces where those really fundamental decisions need to be made, so having a body that’s specialized, has the expertise, and has the support and buy-in from Indigenous peoples is really important when it comes to an institution or a venue for recourse.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Senator Christmas, your time is up.

Senator Duncan: First of all, thank you for your work. I say this to all of the former commissioners. Thank you to the committee for permitting me time on this very important agenda.

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to share with everyone that I am a senator for Yukon, and Yukon was the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop a strategy to implement the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. As this strategy was developed, as a community leader, I was asked to sign on to uphold the implementation of this strategy. Most often, senators will see me wearing the pin in support of the implementation of the strategy.

I consider myself accountable for having signed on. The members of the commission have raised the issue of accountability and holding the federal government to account. Do any of the commissioners have any suggestions on how we, as senators and leaders in our community, might hold provincial and territorial governments to account for developing a strategy and the implementation of the strategy?

Thank you again, commissioners and members of the committee.

Ms. Buller: Thank you, Senator Duncan. Yes, we’re quite thrilled with the response by Yukon, to be honest.

The best way to hold provinces and territories accountable is by example. The Senate, in particular, can lead the way by example for provinces, territories and municipal governments across Canada, but I defer to my colleagues for further comment.

Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Senator Duncan.

Another way to hold provinces and territories to account is through moving forward with the National Action Plan, which is contemplated to include all provinces and territories. I think that would be strong encouragement to get everybody on board.

The Chair: We have two minutes.

Senator Audette: I’ll be your colleague, if everything is okay with the creator, for the next 25 years as a senator. So I hope we have ways to make a working group or — making sure that we follow the process and we all become accountable.

The Chair: My apologies to our distinguished witnesses for having to cut you off once in a while, but we’re on a strict timeline here.

I want to also mention that if there’s anything you would like to get on the record, feel free to submit a written brief to the clerk, and she will take it from there.

The time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Ms. Buller, Senator Audette, Mr. Eyolfson and Ms. Robinson for meeting with us today.

I will now introduce our next panel of witnesses. From Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, Lisa Pigeau, Director of Intergovernmental Relations and Gender-Based Violence Initiatives. From Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, Gerri Sharpe, Interim President and Rosemary Cooper, Executive Director. From the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief and Elizabeth Blaney, Director of Policy Development.

Ms. Pigeau, Ms. Sharpe and National Chief St. Pierre will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes. We will then move to a question-and-answer session of approximately three minutes for senators.

I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time. I will also give everyone notice when one minute is left in the three-minute period for questions and answers. I remind everyone that during the question-and-answer period, members will be given priority.

Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the “raise hand” feature. They will be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat.

I will now invite Ms. Pigeau to give her remarks.

Lisa Pigeau, Director of Intergovernmental Relations and Gender-Based Violence Initiatives, Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak: Good afternoon. It’s an honour to be with you today. I would like to say that I’m calling in from the traditional territory of the Anishinabek, Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee, Oneida and St Lawrence Iroquois peoples. This territory is covered by the Upper Canada treaties.

I would also like to acknowledge that yesterday marked the sombre seventeenth anniversary of the murder of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte in 2005, and I ask that may we forever keep the memories of those who have been lost to us at the forefront of every action we take to end missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

In addition to the release of the inquiry’s final report, LFMO released a report entitled Métis Perspectives of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and LGBTQ2S+ People. This report was developed through various engagement opportunities, community feedback, interviewing Métis subject-matter experts, and, most importantly and at the fore, the input of Métis families and survivors. It was our opinion that the inquiry lacked specific distinctions-based context in terms of Métis, so our Métis Perspectives report identified 62 Métis-specific calls for Miskotahâ. In our language, Miskotahâ means change, so really our report was all about bringing the intended change to the lives of Métis women, girls, 2SLGBTQQIA+ Métis people and their families.

Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, or LFMO, has been the lead on the missing and murdered Indigenous women’s file on behalf of the Métis Nation since pre-Inquiry times. What we do know is it took nearly 15 months after the release of the national inquiry’s report and LFMO’s report for the government to move to the next step of actually building an action plan on MMIWG.

On our part, with representation from across the Métis Nation motherland, we convened a panel and released the Métis Nation Action Plan, Weaving Miskotahâ.

As detailed in our report, LFMO would like to reiterate that urgent and immediate action must take place in the following priority areas, certainly from a distinctions-based perspective: gathering and evaluating data, relationship building, service design and delivery, child and family services reform, healing and wellness, and justice and policing.

Sadly, since the release of the fall economic statement and the 2021 budget, not much has been done to demonstrate any concrete action has been taken.

Funding announcements around MMIWG were not specific, and the funding actually went to more of a broad-based initiative without direct effects on eliminating MMIWG.

Despite the lack of action on the federal and national levels, LFMO continues its own work in the priority policy areas. We continue to work in developing a Métis-specific missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people data and research strategy. Through this work, we have developed relationships with Indigenous research bodies, as well as Statistics Canada. At this point, we’ve provided Statistics Canada with data indicators that are significant to fully understanding the realities facing Métis women in terms of gender-based violence.

Statistics Canada in turn will be providing LFMO with distinctions-based tables, where possible, to match our outlined indicators framework. It’s our goal that the foundational data and information collected becomes part of a living body of work that can be added to, enhanced and updated on an ongoing basis.

Métis women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ folks have also been involved in a project that we call Kiyas Kiskisowin Oma that focuses on honouring, remembering, and respecting Métis women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ folks. This project was led by our Métis Grandmothers Wisdom Circle, and we brought knowledge keepers from across the Métis Nation motherland together to develop resources to support families and communities to honour those lives that have been taken from us.

We develop resources such as healing bundles, a specific grandmother sash, blankets and other ceremonial resources to be presented in packages and shared across the Métis Nation motherland to support healing both individually and collectively.

The Chair: You have one minute left.

Ms. Pigeau: Moving forward, Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak is going to begin engaging with the Métis Nation, Métis National Council and governing members, as well as provincial Métis women’s representative bodies to convene a Métis Nation implementation committee to advise the work as we move forward.

Sadly, the tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people hasn’t ended. Recently, we have seen the loss of 21-year-old Tytiana Janvier in Alberta. We mourn her tragic, tragic passing, and we grieve for the family and community who are dealing with this immeasurable loss.

It’s important to say the names of those who have been lost to us. We have to put a human face to these names so that everyone knows these people are loved, have loved and are so much more than the tragedy that ended their lives. It’s going to take all of us, a whole-of-society approach and a whole-of-government approach to end this national tragedy. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Pigeau.

Gerri Sharpe, Interim President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: Nakurmiik. Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to join you today from Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.

The final report on the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and most importantly the implementation of the report’s recommendations, is important to all Inuit women, girls and gender-diverse people in Canada. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on this important subject.

With me today is Rosemary Cooper, the Executive Director of Pauktuutit. The Pauktuutit is the voice of Inuit women wherever they live in Canada. Our board has representatives from four regions of Inuit Nunangat: Inuvialuit, Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, as well as from urban centres and youth representatives.

For almost 40 years, Pauktuutit has worked to protect and promote the human rights of Inuit women and girls in areas of health, education, economic, physical, emotional and social security. Pauktuutit is also active on an international stage on the rights of Indigenous women. Every year Pauktuutit participates in a session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Pauktuutit has a legal standing at the MMIWG inquiry and was at every hearing where Inuit families told their stories, including mine. Pauktuutit was pleased to see the recommendations in our written submissions reflecting the inquiry’s final report. We thank the commissioners for their diligent work, including making 46 Inuit Calls for Justice and for their ongoing advocacy work since the report was released.

In 2020, the federal government asked Pauktuutit to chair the Inuit working group to write the Inuit chapter of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan in response to the recommendations of the final MMIWG report.

Subsequently, a 10-member working group was formed with Inuit Tapiirit Kanatami co-chairing and representatives from the four Inuit Nunangat regions, the family and survivor circle, and urban and regional Inuit women’s groups.

Last June, following a period of intense collaboration and work with the Inuit working group, the National Inuit Action Plan was released as part of the National Action Plan. The actions recommended in the National Inuit Action Plan are divided into 14 areas that need urgent attention, including shelters and transition housing for women and children fleeing domestic violence, justice and policing, improved access to healing and health care services, including Inuit midwifery, and economic security.

The lack of progress to date. Almost three years following the release of the national inquiry’s final report, and approaching a year after the release of the Inuit Action Plan, Pauktuutit is disappointed at the slow pace of progress. Tragically, there is no evidence that Inuit women, who experience violence at a rate of 14 times higher than other women in Canada, are safer today than they have been when the MMIWG inquiry began.

Additionally, while federal Budget 2021 committed $2.2 billion towards ending violence against Indigenous women, and the most recent round of ministers mandate letters direct that the implementation of the federal pathways and National Action Plan be accelerated, Pauktuutit has not seen concrete progress beyond a federal commitment to fund five Inuit-specific shelters, one in each region of Inuit Nunangat and one in Ottawa, where the largest population of urban Inuit live.

In conclusion, we would like to end the tragedy of Inuit violence. Inuit women must be at the forefront of implementing and monitoring the National Action Plan for Inuit. It is not a preference. It is imperative, consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the recommendations of the inquiry’s final report.

As a start to this work, Pauktuutit is working to establish an MMIWG secretariat within our organization. The secretariat will focus on ensuring that a distinctions-based approach that promotes Inuit women’s voices and leadership for the implementation of the Inuit action plan at the national, regional and community levels becomes a reality.

A distinctions-based approach is essential for Inuit history with the Crown, along with our language, our culture and our geography are distinct from First Nations and Métis people. For healing to occur, commemorative incentives for Inuit women we have lost must be designed and implemented by the victims’ families, Inuit women and our communities.

Also, programs and services to improve the safety and security of Inuit women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as systematic changes in areas like justice, health care, education, housing and economic security will only be achieved if the unique rights, interests, perspectives and ideas of Inuit women are deliberately acknowledged, affirmed and implemented.

Nakurmiik again for this opportunity to appear before your committee. Rosemary and I look forward to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Sharpe. I’ll now invite national Chief St. Pierre to give his remarks.

Elmer St. Pierre, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: [Indigenous language spoken] As the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, I want to acknowledge the territory and the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people where I am today here in Ottawa. As well as the traditional person, I offer tobacco to each and every one of my colleagues that are here today.

With me today is Elizabeth Blaney, CAP’s Director of Policy Development, who will support our presentation today. I am pleased to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples a part of its review of The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples honour all Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gendered people. In line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for the purpose of this presentation, I use the all-inclusive term “Indigenous” or “Aboriginal” to refer to off-reserve, status, non-status Indians, Métis and southern Inuit. As many of you know, the Congress of Aboriginal People, CAP, is proud to represent communities of all distinction.

For members of our community who are also MMIWG family members and survivors, the Reclaiming Power and Place final report has had a personal impact. The work of the Congress is committed to ensure they are not forgotten.

The Aboriginal people are strong and resilient in their identity and culture. However, colonialism has had lasting and harmful effects on us. Ending the violence experienced by women, girls and two-spirit-plus people requires addressing the effect of colonialism that is in violence and Aboriginal norms.

CAP seeks solutions based on recognition and implementation of our inherent rights, constitutional rights, domestic and international rights. In line with the final report of the national inquiry, solutions must be led by Aboriginal people. I stress very firmly, it has to be led by Aboriginal people. I believe that we have enough strong and knowledgeable women that they could be the ones that would lead this inquiry.

Resources must be significant, ongoing and inclusive. Today, we must address unfairness and use of a meaningful process that ends the exclusion of our people. The exclusion that has divided families and communities has put our people at risk of harm. We are part of the circle.

Family survivors and community members of CAP have identified a pathway to safety and well-being. This pathway can lead to meaningful and permanent change. It also helps to ensure that all Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit-plus people are respected, can enjoy their rights and reclaim their power and dignity.

However, I must stress this can only happen if Canada recognizes the rights of our communities and provides the resources necessary to protect safety and wellness. It is CAP’s hope that work on the Calls for Justice is inclusive to all women, girls and two-spirit-plus people regardless of status or where they reside. Full inclusion represents an important act of reconciliation and a major step toward ending what the final report refers to as genocide and practices that maintain colonial violence. It also represents an important step toward meeting Canada’s obligations in international human rights conventions and declarations.

Accountability is key to building trust between governments and Aboriginal people. CAP is committed to working with the government and other communities to walk down the path to ensuring that all are included.

Lastly, I want to remind members of the committee that CAP has been involved in the inquiry since it began. Women, girls and two-spirit people are at the centre of the work we do. Politics has no role in the safety and well-being of our communities.

I would like to thank you again for this opportunity, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Meegwetch. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, National Chief St. Pierre. We will now begin the question-and-answer session.

Senator Christmas: Good afternoon to all our witnesses. Thank you for being here.

I would like to direct my question to Ms. Sharpe or Ms. Cooper. [Indigenous language spoken] First, I want to congratulate you for all the work that you have done in the field of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

I am concerned that despite all your efforts and all your work, as you mentioned, Ms. Sharpe, there has been a lack of progress in the three years since the final report and the year since the release of the National Action Plan. You’re disappointed by the slow progress, and there’s no evidence of Inuit women being safer today than they were earlier.

You mentioned that there were supposed to be five shelters or safe places. Can you explain why a year after the National Action Plan was released there has been no progress on such a basic need of shelters and safe places for Inuit women?

Ms. Sharpe: Thank you for that question, Senator Christmas. I do not have the complete answer, so I will defer to Ms. Cooper.

Rosemary Cooper, Executive Director, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada: Thank you for the question, Senator Christmas. We have secured five shelters. We advocated quite strongly for a year, and we finally did get a commitment for five shelters, one per region throughout Inuit Nunangat and one in Ottawa. We are at the stage of going through proposal submissions, and we are getting closer to seeing these commitments for the five shelters.

Ms. Sharpe: I would add to that, though. You need to remember how many communities are within Inuit Nunangat and how many do not have shelters. It is closer to 30% that will have shelters or transitional housing.

Senator Christmas: I gather, then, the vast majority of Inuit women will not have access to shelters or safe places.

Ms. Cooper: It’s been close to 40 years that Pauktuutit has advocated for shelters, and it’s only now, for the first time in history, that we have received a commitment for the five shelters. Currently, within Inuit Nunangat, which is all remote, fly-in communities, 70% do not have shelters or transitional housing, which means, as you can imagine, especially in the wintertime when it’s cold, there are no roads to escape violence. This is crucial to the work that we’re doing with MMIWG to have equitable services and infrastructure for shelters and transitional housing.

Ms. Sharpe: To add to what Ms. Cooper is saying, I’m going to give you a specific example from here in the Northwest Territories. In the Northwest Territories, if a woman would like to escape domestic violence, she would need to contact the nurse in charge to seek approval for medical travel to be sent to the nearest shelter. In the Northwest Territories, there are five shelters, and in Inuit Nunangat, it would mean that she would go to Inuvik. There are times when the nurse in charge feels that the individual is not to be believed, and she is turned down medical travel. There is a drastic, urgent need for this to be reviewed and for better solutions to be put in place.

Senator Pate: Thank you to all of our witnesses for the work you do on a daily basis, as well as what you’ve done over the decades and your contributions to this process.

I think you were all on the line when I asked the commissioners a question about, in particular, the recommendation for a guaranteed livable income.

I’m interested, from each of your organizations, how you would see that benefiting the women you work with as part of the overall strategy and whether you were consulted by Indigenous Services when they came up with the response that they provided to the Finance Committee.

Ms. Pigeau: In terms of guaranteed income and the kind of safety or security it would add, from our perspective, it will go some way to improving the outcomes and realities our women face.

However, when you look at the recently announced $10-a-day magical child care, a guaranteed livable income may not be enough to sustain even that $10-a-day child care, so how much further are we getting along the pathway?

In terms of engagement and consultation, from our perspective, that needs to be ongoing. It can’t be done at a point in time. It has to be an evolving process, and regardless of whether the consultation or engagement occurred before the idea of guaranteed income was proposed, there needs to be constant feedback and a reciprocal relationship to ensure the outcomes are being met. Thank you.

Senator Pate: Were any of the other organizations consulted to your knowledge? Was CAP?

Mr. St. Pierre: I will defer to my colleague Ms. Blaney.

Elizabeth Blaney, Director of Policy Development, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Thank you, National Chief, and good afternoon, senators. That’s a great question. Thank you.

No, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, to my knowledge, was not consulted on what a livable income would look like or if that is the approach that we would like to pursue.

Like my colleagues who spoke before said, it isn’t enough. I’ve worked in the social welfare area for a long time, and when we start talking about livable income, we have to ask: Are we talking about affordable housing? Are we talking about, like our colleague mentioned, child care? All of these other things need to be taken into consideration when we talk about Indigenous women’s lives.

The majority of Indigenous women live off reserve. They are not on reserve. I commend working with the Assembly of First Nations and ensuring that folks on reserve receive a livable income, but it needs to apply to all Indigenous women and their families across the board.

Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all our witnesses for the work you do.

In relation to the National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Inuit Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People, how have the priority areas for cooperation between land-claim organizations and the different levels of government, or Pauktuutit, been established for Inuit who are living in the Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut and the Inuvik territory, as well as areas outside of those territories? How are those relationships or cooperation being established?

Ms. Sharpe: Thank you for that question. While I know how to answer some of your question, Rosemary is in a better position to answer that. We do definitely meet on a regular basis with the other land-claim organizations.

Rosemary, I’d like you to take it from here.

Ms. Cooper: Thank you. Pauktuutit was asked to lead the National Inuit Action Plan. We work directly with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the land-claim organizations, as well as urban representatives, like Tunngasugit Inuit and Pauktuutit representatives. The plan was through this working group, which is now under the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee’s reconciliation secretariat.

I hope that answers your question. If you want more specifics around that, I’m happy to answer.

Senator Coyle: That’s okay. Thank you very much.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

It is my opinion that some of these injustices stem from the first settlers and the building of the railroads. Could you give me your opinions on this?

Ms. Sharpe: I can give you my personal opinion on this.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That’s fine, yes.

Ms. Sharpe: It’s important to remember that, for the majority of Inuit living in Canada, as Rosemary mentioned, services to health care are not next door. They’re not down the highway or down the road, as they would be in most parts of Canada. A lot of it has to do with medical travel. Even women who need to deliver babies are sent out of their home communities four weeks ahead of time. This includes your mental health, your physical health; it includes all of your health.

As a result, there are a lot of women who are sent to urban centres in Southern Canada to receive health care. That has led to a lot of women being left in the South, and it has added to the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

So there are a lot of different components as to how that happens and what that looks like. That would even include treatment centres. We do not have treatment centres here in the Northwest Territories, so in order to access drug and alcohol counselling or any type of treatment plan, you need to go to another province or territory just for something as basic as that that people get next door down south.

Midwifery is a huge one.

I’ll leave it at that and give the other witnesses time to answer as well.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.

Ms. Pigeau: I would like to echo some of the sentiments presented by former commissioner Robinson. I believe it was her who spoke to the importance of a trauma-informed approach. For us, having that trauma-informed approach is really about unpacking those full impacts of colonization and understanding individually how that has impacted our psyche and our existence today.

What is important about that piece is how we move forward from here and change that narrative, to change the people’s perspective of Indigenous people and, in our case, Métis people, in Canada. It’s to really begin to rebuild relationships in an honourable way and in an equal way, and in the spirit, ultimately, of eliminating this tragedy.

We have to move forward together. We have to be given the resources, or the mechanisms have to be put in place so that we can create our own solutions.

I don’t believe fully that moving forward one way with the government or solely with us will achieve the full impacts; we need to go forward together. But we have the solutions that will impact our women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people so that we don’t lose another woman, girl or 2SLGBTQQIA+ person. Thank you.

Mr. St. Pierre: Could you repeat your question?

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: It’s my opinion that some of these injustices stem from the first settlers and the building of the railroads.

Mr. St. Pierre: You’ve got a very good point there.

I have the same sentiment you do. I believe that is where it all stemmed from. That’s where they say the Métis come from. Our native women — First Nations — the people who were here first — they’ve been raped, and they were probably murdered as well. With the railroad continuing on, it kept on going and going.

The whole racism and discrimination started way back then, and today, it’s still just as bad as it was back then.

A good chunk of it started when the settlers came in, took over areas and stole the women. I believe you are probably right. Thank you.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.

Senator Hartling: Thank you, witnesses. It has been very enlightening, because the bottom line is that we’re all worried about not having any more missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, wherever they come from. It’s trying to understand each group’s perspective.

If it’s okay with Chief St. Pierre, I will ask my question to Elizabeth Blaney.

Mr. St. Pierre: Yes, definitely. Go ahead.

Senator Hartling: Thank you. I know Elizabeth from way back. It’s a pleasure to see you, Elizabeth.

My question is about the policy development. What are some of the policies your group is working on right now that would help with this situation, to work in collaboration with others? It’s quite shocking when you said that a lot of women live off reserve. That was interesting. Please speak to some of the issues and the policy you’re working on currently, thank you.

Ms. Blaney: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s nice to see you as well and others.

There are a number of policies all across the scope of government and governments, whether it’s federal, municipal or territorial, where policy changes are required. Because we’re a national organization, we work on those different jurisdictional fronts. It was really astute of our colleague before — I think it was former commissioner Robinson — who talked about the need to talk across jurisdictions. That’s so important.

In terms of specific policies, there are housing policies, language policies, cultural policies, et cetera. In terms of MMIWG, legislation for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls — legislation that covers missing persons — the legislation that we have in Canada covers only estates.

There are no standards, like national standards or even provincial or territorial standards, across the board that can assist police or rescue workers in some of our areas. In the North, it’s usually the rescue services that look for missing persons. There are no standards for that, so there’s no way to really get at that and have a good look at that. We know from our conversations today and otherwise that there’s a lot of systemic racism within Canadian institutions, and that’s what we’re hearing. In order to really address the kinds of biases that may be there, we need to have legislation that provides a set of standards for officers or investigators to follow to ensure that women and girls and 2S+ folks who have gone missing are looked for, that there is a process in place to look for and support them. We don’t have that.

I remember at the inquiry that was an issue around missing persons legislation. We talked about that at the inquiry, and that was considered at that time to be something we might be able to do immediately, but we haven’t seen that action.

Senator Hartling: Thank you, Elizabeth.

Senator Christmas: I’d like to direct this question to Ms. Pigeau. It’s really sad to hear and sad to say that even in 2022 we still have Indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people still going missing and still being murdered. You mentioned the loss of a 21-year-old from your nation, and that is sad.

I also want to thank you for all the work that you have put into developing your own report on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and you had mentioned there were 62 specific actions. After all these months, if I heard you correctly, you said in your testimony that no concrete action has been taken yet. Now we’re almost a year since the National Action Plan was released.

Could you confirm that, and could you tell me what discussions the Métis have had with the federal government or the provinces about implementing the National Action Plan?

Ms. Pigeau: Yes. In terms of the implementation portion, of course, we’ve had consistent dialogue throughout the development of the National Action Plan and the Métis Nation action plan. Sadly, I have to report that the implementation portion completely fell short. In fact, it was a non-starter from our perspective. We haven’t been engaged at a federal or even a provincial level in any kind of implementation strategy.

We know from earlier work what implementation needs to look like from a Métis perspective, but we eagerly want to get down to the nuts and bolts and lay out specifically the concrete actions that are required, the players required at the table and some timeframes. We need to develop that resource framework. We need to really specify the indicators of change. We eagerly await that, but we’ve just been granted to go forward with that work immediately. We’re beginning to reconvene our Métis Nation and governing members and our Métis women’s representative bodies across the Métis Nation motherland.

We’re coming up to the anniversary of the National Action Plan, and of the national inquiry report on June 3rd. It’s not going to be a very favourable report at that time from my own personal opinion.

Senator Christmas: Ms. Pigeau, thank you very much for that. We heard from the previous panel that the Senate should consider steps to ensure that the government is accountable for all the work that was done with the final report and with the National Action Plan. One of the actions recommended to us today was the need to create a parliamentary ombudsman for that specific responsibility: to hold the government accountable. Can you share your thoughts about that course of action?

Ms. Pigeau: Thank you. Yes, there’s been ongoing discussions about the government accountability in terms of investments, in terms of what has actually changed on the ground.

Now what that accountability structure looks like has to be further fleshed out, in my opinion. Do we call it an ombudsperson? I’m not sure that’s the word we need to use. We just know that that accountability, that oversight committee, or oversight body, needs to be at arm’s length from the government. That requires more very specific investigation, specific detailing, engagement and direct consultation with national Indigenous women’s organizations, with other national Indigenous representative bodies and right from grassroots up. It needs to be further fleshed out if that is what we want to see happen.

We know that a structure needs to be there, we just need to further flesh out what it looks like.

Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Pigeau.

Senator Coyle: We could go on. There are so many questions to ask. I’ll pick up on Senator Christmas’s question around accountability and ask Ms. Pigeau or any of the others as well to weigh in. This concept of having an oversight body of some sort — and we’re hearing from you, Ms. Pigeau, about consultation with your organization and other Indigenous women’s organizations to get the input required to help to shape this, both in terms of membership as well as the mandate and how it relates to government, et cetera, and those who have been involved in getting us to this point.

Could you speak to whether you’ve had conversations to this point with the government about this and what the nature of those conversations has been?

Ms. Pigeau: We have had conversations throughout the National Action Plan process, but I don’t think it’s been done with enough specificity to completely detail it at this point, senator, so I will defer to my other esteemed panellists or witnesses. We know something needs to be put in place, and we’re ready, willing and able to be at that table to engage and consult.

I want to rephrase or reposition it. I did say national Indigenous women’s organizations, but national Indigenous organizations as well. Everyone needs to be at the table. Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Thank you.

Ms. Sharpe: Rosemary, I’m wondering if you have anything that you would like to add to this as well, but I do feel there needs to be accountability put in place, because if there is no accountability, nobody will know what those measures are or how we are making progress towards ending this tragedy. Rosemary, I’m hoping you can also add to it.

Ms. Cooper: During the final inquiry, there was a round table of validating recommendations, and there we felt strongly as Inuit that there has to be a mechanism for an arm’s-length ombudsman type to measure, not only the federal government, but also the provincial and territorial governments in how it’s measured up against the key recommendations for Inuit.

There are already mechanisms or systems in place, like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are models out there that can be looked at to ensure that the stories that were heard from Inuit families or women is not just another entity in history that’s been shared and no deliverables on that. You need to ensure there is a mechanism to see that families are being heard, and this ombudsman, distant from the government, is measuring the success of this inquiry report. Nakurmiik.

Senator Pate: Thank you again to our witnesses. One of the things the commission looked at was the links between the very same issues that result in Indigenous women and girls being more likely to go missing and be murdered and be homeless are also the same issues that give rise to them being the fastest growing prison population, now one in two in Canada. They made a number of recommendations also about ways funding could be provided to Indigenous communities, First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

I’m asking a similar question to the one I asked previously. Were you consulted on any of these, and have you been asked to provide input as to how you could keep women and girls in the community versus having them incarcerated, given the fact that there are virtually no questions asked about increasing rates of incarceration and also virtually no resources being put into housing and other alternative strategies?

I’m curious whether each of your organizations has been consulted around some of those recommendations. If so, what kinds of resources have been provided to you?

Ms. Sharpe: Thank you for that question. Pauktuutit has definitely had input. For further details, I will ask Rosemary to provide some comments.

Ms. Cooper: We’ve definitely done some work around criminalization or imprisonment of Inuit women through the justice strategy. This is one area that we’ve wanted to see improvements for Inuit women who are in federal penitentiaries. Far too often systems or programming are not addressing Inuit-specific needs. It’s either First Nations or other. That is not user-friendly for Inuit women for simple things like our kind of food, our language, our way of practice. When you start incorporating others, it’s not unique. Our shoe, our kamik, doesn’t fit in the boot necessarily, as a scenario.

When you’re incarcerated, if it’s two plus years, it’s federal penitentiary, and there’s no way of getting around that. However, when we talk about provincial-territorial incarceration, or prisons, again, there is a real need for programming that is user-friendly and designed for Inuit and including elders. Any service agency should always ensure there is a way, a mechanism to bring the individuals back healthy and not further damaged when they come out of the system. It’s rooted in our culture and values. Thank you.

Ms. Sharpe: That does start right from the beginning with the interactions with RCMP as well. I can give you one example. An individual lives in an apartment and someone has called the RCMP and social workers on her and reported her asking for a wellness check. In the meantime, nothing is going on there. He is what she calls a drug dealer. He has previously come up to her apartment screaming outside of her door that he’s going to kill her in her sleep. She has this on recording and the RCMP do nothing because they are there to do a wellness check on her apartment.

Also, when it comes to the RCMP within communities in Inuit Nunangat, there is a distinct difference between the way community lives are in Inuit Nunangat compared to the South. When it comes to Inuit Nunangat and the communities, they are a community as a whole. So one person can’t come in and do their job in isolation; it has to be the whole community, which also means that any members coming into our communities need to embrace the entire community. They can’t just do one job and expect to be a participant in the community.

Ms. Pigeau: I don’t feel that Métis women have been engaged sufficiently and in a meaningful way to help determine those changes that need to occur in the justice system to improve outcomes. We need further work, as was recommended in our report, but we do know that we need Métis-specific services to reduce the disproportionately high rates of incarceration.

I do want to echo what my colleague Rosemary stated. Within those institutions, Métis people consistently experience anti-Métis racism, where programs are designed for a First Nation or pan-Indigenous approach. So from our perspective, we want to begin to see the investments and strengths-based healing and services programs, instead of institutional programs. We want to see the resources directed to grassroots community initiatives and national Indigenous groups so that those changes can be made globally.

Our current systems, including child welfare and criminal justice, they’re not intended or designated for healing in ways that many individuals and communities require, and we know when we implement our own healing, our own strategies, from localized knowledge, from kinship and from relations, that we’re able to incorporate our own values into our own healing programs.

Senator Christmas: I’ll direct this question to Ms. Sharpe or Ms. Cooper. Last summer I heard an announcement by the Government of Canada in Nunavut that they were constructing a Nunavut Recovery Centre that would provide a wide range of healing and cultural services and practices. Have your organizations been consulted on the establishment of this recovery centre, and what are your thoughts about the programs and services that it proposes to offer?

Ms. Cooper: No, Pauktuutit hasn’t specifically been consulted on the tripartite approach to the treatment centre in Iqaluit, but this is what it takes to ensure that all parties — whether it’s federal, provincial, or land claims — and Pauktuutit play a role in infrastructure need, programming need.

We do celebrate such milestones in a treatment centre that is so overdue, and we’re doing the same with the five shelters where we are working directly with the land claim organizations through our steering committees and what have you.

No work can be in isolation. It requires resources and program design rooted in the community region that is centred around our culture.

Ms. Sharpe: To add, when you look at where that’s built in Iqaluit, it should be rooted in where it’s serving its people. Nunavut is 85% Inuit, so the fact that it’s even a question of whether or not it’s rooted in Indigenous or Inuit beliefs, it’s the way that it should be. Here in the Northwest Territories, the population is 55% Indigenous. I can probably break those numbers down for you further, but when you look at the services and recovery, it’s disproportionate.

When I say disproportionate, I mean when it comes to those that are in the justice system, those that are in health care, even child care and social services, there is a disproportionate need to look at what is going on there and how that happens, and I feel like I’ve gone off on a tangent, sorry.

Senator Christmas: No problem. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I wish to thank everyone for meeting with us today, and to the witnesses, we really appreciate your testimony. This meeting is now adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)