THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 25, 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: I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
My name is Brian Francis and I am a senator from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I have the pleasure to chair this hybrid meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
I remind senators and witnesses to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair. Should any technical challenges arise, please let the chair or clerk know. I would also remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You can use and share official proceedings posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
I will now take a few minutes to introduce the members of the committee participating in today’s meeting, starting with our deputy chair, Senator Christmas from Nova Scotia. Also with us today is Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Audette from Quebec, Senator Clement from Ontario, Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia, Senator Hartling from New Brunswick, Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Tannas from Alberta.
Today, we are here to resume our study into the federal implementation of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which was released back in 2019. The testimony we’ll hear today will help inform the focus of a longer-term study that the committee will undertake in the fall.
I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. With us today are Nancy Jourdain, Denise Pictou Maloney and Jana Schulz. I would also like to mention to the witnesses before they present that if there’s any time that they need to stop and take a break, please feel free to let us know.
Please note that Ms. Jourdain, Ms. Pictou Maloney and Ms. Schulz will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes each. We will subsequently move to a question and answer session of approximately three minutes per senator. We have a limited amount of time per panel. I ask that you please try to be brief and to the point whenever possible. To keep us on track, I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time for remarks. Similarly, I will let senators and witnesses know when they have one minute left in the period for questions and answers. Thank you for your cooperation.
Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the “c” feature. You will then be acknowledged by the clerk or me.
Having said all that, I now want to invite Ms. Jourdain to begin her opening remarks.
[Translation]
Ms. Nancy Jourdain, as an individual:
[Witness spoke in an Indigenous language]
Good afternoon, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you as part of your examination of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
My name is Nancy Jourdain. I am Innu, from the Uashat mak Mani-utenam community. I testified before the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls regarding the violence I experienced in an organization in my community.
It was very freeing to testify, marking the beginning of the long process to heal from those events. I am very grateful to the inquiry, so it was with great pride, emotion and hope that I attended the June 3, 2019 ceremony at which the inquiry presented its final report containing the 231 calls for justice.
For weeks, women, girls and their families spoke their truths about the violence they had experienced, demonstrating courage, humility and resilience through the sharing of their stories. Their efforts must not be in vain.
Life in my community has not changed since the report came out. The violence is still there. Friends, colleagues and acquaintances are still struggling to cope with various forms of violence, from harassment and domestic violence to financial violence.
The needs when it comes to housing, not to mention physical, emotional and mental health supports, are ever-present and just as acute as they were before. I would even say they have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In our day-to-day lives, we have not seen anything concrete flowing from the recommendations that came out nearly three years ago now.
I have a Mohawk friend named Melanie Morrison. Her sister was murdered, and the investigation is still pending. She told me about how hard it has been for her, as a member of an English-speaking First Nation in Quebec, to obtain information on the efforts made to implement the calls for justice. Awareness of the violence against Indigenous women and girls, and supports for impacted families remains a challenge.
How do you explain the fact that police forces in jurisdictions surrounding the city of Montreal are denying victims’ family members the right to be served in their language? It speaks to a lack of knowledge of the calls for justice on the part of some police forces.
I can tell you that, in the course of my work over the past year, women accounted for 90% of individuals who had taken time off work because of illness. All the blame cannot be laid at the door of the pandemic; in fact, the pandemic has brought to light the reality faced by Innu women and other First Nations women, I have no doubt.
Most of the women I know are single parents, supporting their families on their own. In some cases, the fathers are absent. In others, the parental contribution made by the fathers, whether in time or money, depends on how they can benefit from the relationship or whether the mother is acting as they think she should. Some women are in relationships with men who have substance abuse issues or who are violent. Other women have their adult children living with them and have to cope with financial violence. Their day-to-day lives are made difficult by these circumstances, which are exacerbated by the fact that they live in a community where everyone lives in close proximity.
The responsibility for following, implementing and overseeing the recommendations should not fall yet again on Indigenous women and girls. Their daily realities are already riddled with tremendous challenges. The responsibility should not rest with them.
These are the things I want to know. Where do the 231 calls for justice stand? Where does the national action plan stand? What is the federal government doing? What is the Quebec government doing?
The government has a duty to assume responsibility for the response to the calls for justice and the logical next steps. The government alone has the power to encourage, require and compel those concerned to ensure the requested changes are implemented, along with accountability mechanisms, so that the calls for justice issued by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls do not simply gather dust on a shelf.
After hearing the stories of victims, the government cannot leave them out in the cold yet again. It must take actions to follow through on the calls for justice. Tshinashkumitin. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jourdain. Ms. Pictou Maloney, I now invite you to give your opening remarks.
Denise Pictou Maloney, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am coming to you live from the unceded territory of the Mi’kma’ki, more specifically Kjipuktuk on the east coast of Turtle Island. Thank you for inviting me to share with you today my experiential journey and truths as a missing and murdered Indigenous woman and girl family member.
I am but one of thousands of families and survivors across this country impacted by the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and I will speak to you today as one of two surviving daughters of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash.
I was 10 years old when my mother was stolen from me. She was the centre of our universe. The neglect and abuse my mother’s case and family endured over almost three decades profiled her case into one of Canada’s oldest and well-known neglected missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls cases.
Lateral violence, jealousy, betrayal, gaslighting and bad-jacketing were all effective tactics used by my mother’s murderers to silence my mother in her efforts to justify their heinous decision to execute her. My mother was executed for speaking the truth, for daring to call out the domestic violence and systemic corruption that had cost the lives of others in her circle. For decades, her murder was deemed too controversial for many advocacy and organizations to take on.
In 2010, after four trials and the eyewitness accounts of 23 witnesses, which resulted in two convictions, a guilty plea and an acquittal, it was proven that members of the American Indian Movement kidnapped, interrogated, beat, raped and executed Anna Mae Pictou Aquash. Our family spent decades in silent agony as we moved through multiple hearings and trials with no external supports and faced the real challenge of organizations and advocacy groups, like AFN and Amnesty International, contradictorily supporting my mother’s murderers on the eve of the launch of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. To this day, these organizations publicly support her murderers.
Forty-seven years later, our family is faced with the reality of having to appeal to our own justice system to maintain the value of my mother’s life, to treat her as a human being. Efforts to appeal convictions based on procedural fairness do not take into account the procedural fairness that my mother lost in the loss of her life.
The national inquiry, for our family, provided a safe space where I could refer to my mother not as a victim but as a human being, where I could express the intergenerational loss. I am looking around this room and seeing what I imagine are several grandparents. I lost my mother. My children lost their grandmother. I lost my language and my culture.
[Technical difficulties]
The Chair: While we try to sort out those difficulties, I invite Ms. Schulz to give her opening remarks.
Jana Schulz, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to acknowledge that I’m joining today from the unceded and traditional territory of the Ktunaxa Nation, and I feel very honoured to appear before you all.
I was the only Métis member on the National Family and Survivors Circle. I, unfortunately, had to step down from my position after the release of our contribution to the 2021 National Action Plan due to family obligations and a conflict in my work schedule. I am also a registered social worker and a family member.
The inquiry process allowed me and a loved one to feel heard and provided ceremony and culturally specific supports. We left the inquiry feeling lighter and thought that it was the start of our healing journey. Then, almost a year later, we received an email stating that, pursuant to section S. in the terms of reference for the national inquiry, a referral letter had been sent to the Commissioner of the RCMP; and that, as of the same day, the inquiry offices were permanently closed and staff would be unavailable. We were provided with health support numbers but no information on next steps. We were left to face the referral process alone. My loved one and I decided that we would like to pursue informal resolutions that would hopefully provide an opportunity for change. I can’t even begin to count the number of times I wanted to give up on the referral process, which should never have been left up to me, the family member, alone, to monitor.
Eventually, the only Métis liaison officer that B.C. has joined the process. With her assistance and her ability to liaise with the staff sergeant at our local detachment, we agreed to have myself complete a presentation with information that I felt would help bring awareness and education to local RCMP on the issues that Indigenous women, specifically Métis women, face in our community, with the hopes that it would provide pathways to create change. On April 21, 2022, almost three years later from receiving that email with the referral information, I provided a digital copy of my presentation that will be used as part of mandatory training for all new and current members within our local RCMP detachment.
I am grateful to my educational background because it provided me with the skills to navigate the complexity of the whole process. However, I have been spiritually, emotionally and psychologically harmed through my search for support and guidance on completing the referral process in a good way. The lived experience I had during the referral process highlighted the inequity that Métis face in receiving culturally relevant supports.
Call for Justice 1.7, which speaks to the establishment of a national Indigenous rights ombudsperson and a tribunal, requires urgency in its implementation. We are almost a year since the release of the National Action Plan, and it’s time to start seeing action related to the 231 Calls for Justice.
In my search for safe and culturally relevant supports, I discovered that there are none for Métis in B.C. — or at least in my area. I feel that if there had been Indigenous-specific victim service supports that understood the unique needs of Métis, I wouldn’t have felt so alone.
Reaching out to a national women’s organization that I thought would be supportive turned out to be one of the most damaging parts of the referral process. There was a narrative that Métis were not included in the inquiry process, and they reminded me of their stance time and time again. Each time, I felt it was an attempt to further silence my experience and that mine and my loved ones’ voices didn’t matter, thus highlighting the need for accountability mechanisms that also monitor how support services are delivered and to ensure that families and survivors have access to safe and culturally relevant support services, no matter where they live.
Despite all of the challenges faced, I’m extremely grateful for the outcome of providing a presentation that my loved one is proud of and that I am proud of. It is a tool that will be used to help create awareness within our local RCMP detachment. It is solution-focused, highlighting some of the Calls for Justice that can guide small, yet impactful, changes and brings light to topics that I feel much of society would rather not acknowledge. I can now, as of today, begin to heal from the harms done since we were notified of the referral letter up to the referral process closing last week.
Thank you again for providing me the opportunity to appear before you all today.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Schulz.
Ms. Pictou Maloney, please continue with your presentation.
Ms. Pictou Maloney: Thank you very much. I want to apologize for the technical delays. Maybe I should have done this in the Mi’kmaw language.
To continue, currently, our women are not in the position of doing what is right anymore; rather, we’re faced with not upsetting the hand that feeds us and are left to choose between what is safe and less risky.
I wanted to talk to you today about how important it is to make sure that, as we are trying to create options for families, we be as inclusive as we can without excluding those most impacted by this crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
As sovereign nations, we should not have to ask for permission to be treated as human beings in our own territories. The doctrine of discovery is what has brought us here to this time in our history where Indigenous women, girls and 2S individuals can be comfortably accepted as collateral damage in a patriarchal system that has disenfranchised us from our inherent matrilineal rights as protectors and keepers of land, water and the next seven generations. Many of the documents, inquiries and processes, in their efforts to be inclusive and pan-Indigenous, do not acknowledge the inherent equity of women and girls.
If we do not impress how critical it is in our leadership on all levels of governance that we move into the implementation phase of the 231 Calls for Justice with clear timelines, an accountability mechanism and an ombudsperson, we will continue to be trapped in a Jordan’s Principle situation where governments at all levels waste valuable time arguing over whose responsibility it is to implement the 231 Calls for Justice while advocacy groups and organizations continue their perpetual lottery with inadequate funding and maintaining the status quo, and our women and girls continue to die.
Holding accountable those receiving billions of dollars on behalf of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls’ wellness is not always appreciated by those on the receiving end, and yet here we are three years later with growing numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, dirty water, food insecurity and a housing crisis. Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in this country is a billion-dollar industry.
Important concepts to focus on are making sure that we have safe and equitable inclusion for families to be part of this process; making sure that we have an accountability mechanism like an ombudsperson that focuses on inherent challenges in our current structures; identifying new causes and foundational issues — we will always be treating the symptoms and not the disease; understanding how important it is to centre families and survivors with lived experience so they are not just sitting at the table but have a voice at those tables and a shift that needs to happen in our values; making sure that we address things like accessibility, which we didn’t even get to attempt to address during the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Women have to live a dignified life that acknowledges them as human beings. We have a perpetual climate of colonial authority that keeps our women and girls trapped in a vicious cycle of victimization that does not take into account the self-determined capabilities of survivors and how we know best how to heal in a way that is culturally safe and dignified.
I want to leave you with a quote:
A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is done, no matter how brave its warriors or how strong its weapons.
Thank you for your time today.
The Chair: Thank you Ms. Pictou Maloney.
We will now begin the question and answer session. I will invite Deputy Chair Senator Christmas to start.
Senator Christmas: Thank you to the three witnesses for appearing before the committee. We certainly appreciate your efforts to testify before the committee.
A couple of the witnesses mentioned Call to Action 1.7, which referenced the need for a national Indigenous ombudsperson. Could the panel elaborate on why you feel this Call to Action 1.7 is so important? I want to note, before you answer the question, that the national action plan did not respond to that particular Call to Justice. Why do you think Call to Action 1.7 is so important?
Ms. Schulz: Thank you, Senator Christmas, for the question. I’ll do my best to answer it.
For me, it’s the accountability, from my experience, even in the province of B.C. and the lack of engagement involving families. The process of implementation of all other Calls for Justice needs accountability. It needs to be at arm’s reach of government, national organizations or anyone who is currently receiving core funding from the government in order to do the work, because sometimes it’s those services that also create layers of harm.
I think it’s important. My personal opinion is that it would be a really good starting point to ensure that the Calls of Justice are implemented as well, having a person or the tribunal as an avenue for people to go to file those complaints if there is a delay in getting things off the ground. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Pictou Maloney, unfortunately your sound is of the quality that we can’t have interpretation. We’re going to ask that you respond in writing to the clerk. Sorry about that.
[Translation]
Ms. Jourdain: I would agree with what Ms. Schulz said about an ombudsperson. There has to be accountability in relation to the actions taken. There has to be a place where people can turn to voice their dissatisfaction with the progress made on certain actions. What’s more, people have to be able to flag the failure to act at all. Where are they supposed to go, and who are they supposed to turn to in that situation? There needs to be a place where people can lodge requests and raise concerns regarding calls for justice that have gone unanswered. There has to be a place where people can go to have those requests addressed.
This is an important step to give strength to the calls for justice. If no one is responsible for handling those requests, the process will be hollow, putting the responsibility back on Indigenous women and girls and their families. They have to be supported in this process, and an ombudsperson is one way to provide that support.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses.
It’s very good to see a friend from Mi’kma’ki here and to see you again. Last time I saw you was on the campus of St. Francis Xavier University when we had Buffy Sainte-Marie present. You set her straight on some issues to do with your mother.
Thank you for the answers about the ombudsperson. I’d like to probe that a little further. All of you have mentioned this issue of accountability, and that being key. Ms. Jourdain, you mentioned it shouldn’t be left to Indigenous women themselves to have to be the ones constantly on this, and that it should be up to the government to make sure that there are mechanisms in place. I’d like to hear more about accountability, be it the ombudsperson or other mechanisms you would like to see in place.
The other point that has been mentioned is this concern about pan-indigeneity and how we need to have responses that are appropriate for different Indigenous women across the country, wherever they might be, and how to make sure that the solutions match the woman. I’d like to hear a bit more about the issue of having things more tailored. I believe that was Ms. Schulz who raised that issue in particular. Thank you.
Ms. Schulz: In particular, I personally see it as a simple solution in finding out what that individual needs. Just ask them, “What is it that you need that could help support you in this?” If we can’t come up with those certain supports, then finding the supports that will help with that. As an example, in order to receive any type of BC Family Information Liaison Unit, or FILU, programming, I had to fly down to Victoria. It’s about a 14-hour drive for me to go to Victoria. I’m closer to Calgary or the United States. Not having access to those supports is really challenging. This was all pre-COVID. We didn’t have the Zoom ability and stuff at that point. I think it’s actually very simple. “What is it that you need?” Rather than supports being imposed on us, it’s asking what we need, what kind of cultural supports, and moving forward from there. Thank you, Senator Coyle.
Senator Coyle: I’d like to follow up on that question. Thank you very much. That seems very obvious, doesn’t it, but it isn’t always the way it is. I think that probably also refers in some ways to what Ms. Pictou Maloney mentioned about including the most impacted and listening to those who are most impacted and being guided by what they have to say.
I just want to go back, though, to the point around accountability and the ombudsperson. We’ve heard you speak about that and the need for that. I’m curious if there are other aspects or other ideas around accountability that you think need to be in place in addition to the ombudsperson. There’s a lot to be done here, and as you’ve all said, it’s not being done, so what other kinds of recourse do we need to have in place?
Ms. Schulz: That’s a tough one to answer in this short time, but I think even regionally, so not just a national ombudsperson or tribunal, but regional accountability mechanisms as well. Speaking from my experience and my geographical location — I’m Mountain Time, not Pacific Time, but all of B.C. is on Pacific Time. So it’s having different regional offices even that are available to people all across the province, whether you’re in northern B.C. —and I can only speak to B.C. —but either northern B.C. or central B.C. or on the coast. The regional part is also very important, simply because then it can also help with provincial government accountability as well or any of those services provided by the provincial government.
The Chair: Just before we go to our next witness, I want to mention to Ms. Pictou Maloney that if she wants to try to put an answer at any time in the Zoom chat, we’ll have the clerk read it out. We can try to find a way to make this work here.
Ms. Pictou Maloney: Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you to all of you for being with us this afternoon and for giving your presentations.
My question deals with the Calls to Action. As you’re all aware, there have been tireless and endless numbers of reports on Indigenous peoples throughout history, and we’ve had a lot of recommendations, such as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. There were lots of recommendations on there. For many years they’ve collected dust, and oftentimes it’s because there was a switch in government. Going forward, what do you believe is key to ensuring that 10, 15 or 20 years from now, we’re not talking about the Calls to Action in this report collecting dust but actually, hopefully, talking about the implementation of those? What do you think is really key going forward here? Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Jourdain: There isn’t a single answer to that question given how significant the challenges are. The government needs to take a stand, which must translate into legislation. I’m not sure, however, what the scope of that legislation should be.
The federal government needs to set the tone by passing legislation that would impose accountability requirements on the various institutions and make them report to the federal government. Through that process, organizations could report on what they have done to implement the calls to action that apply to them, for example. That’s one approach.
I can draw a parallel with the Canada Labour Code and the recent amendments relating to workplace violence and harassment. Under the changes, employers have to report annually on various types of incidents. If an incident involves discrimination, the employer has to report it, which wasn’t the case before. For our purposes, a similar mechanism could be put in place for the various reports submitted to the government. For example, the reports could include which measures were put in place and which actions will be taken in the future. Were those actions subject to follow-up? Everything would have to be reported, quantified or visibly laid out.
For the moment, that doesn’t seem to exist. The various stakeholders would have to provide that information voluntarily. The process has to have some visibility to spur action, so it does not meet the same fate as all the other reports to date and fade into oblivion.
[English]
The Chair: Our clerk has an answer from Ms. Pictou Maloney to the question.
[Read by Andrea Mugny, Clerk of the Committee]
Ms. Pictou Maloney: There’s never been an ombudsman, to my knowledge, and having a reporting and feedback mechanism from families and survivors will be the best insurance that Calls for Justice are implemented. If I can go to Walmart and get asked how my shopping was, I think Canada can do a reporting mechanism that addresses human lives.
[Translation]
Senator Audette:
[Witness spoke in an Indigenous language]
Thank you, Ms. Jourdain, dear Nancy. Thank you, Denise Pictou, a great friend and mentor, and many thanks to you, Jana Schulz, for sharing your truth and courage. Your truths represent those of thousands of women who, for all sorts of reasons, could not speak them for far too long.
Briefly, I recognize that accountability and transparency are important. I also think they should reflect the various regions of Canada and the diversity of our peoples, the Inuit, Métis and First Nations. Going forward, I will consider all of this carefully in my time in the Senate.
I was glad to hear that it should all be encapsulated in legislation. You are fortunate to be in the company of senators, because I think we will have an opportunity to bring forward, or contribute to, relevant legislation.
Knowing how urgent the everyday needs are, I’d like to hear what the Senate can do — other than carrying out studies — to help members of the other house and Canadians understand the importance of supporting those who are still suffering today.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
[English]
Ms. Schulz: I would like to thank Senator Audette for that question. I would need some time to reflect on that a little bit. I do apologize. I would like to give that question an answer that it would be deserving of, so unfortunately I don’t feel it would be a good one to answer that at this point.
Senator Audette: Did you understand when I said thank you for your courage?
Ms. Schulz: I did. Thank you very much for your words. It hit me in the heart. Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
[Read by Ms. Mugny]
Ms. Pictou Maloney: Currently, Canada invests billions of dollars in MMIWG, and there has to be a way we can reconcile the investments in actions implementing the 231 Calls to Justice.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Audette: I will do my best in English. I saw the action plan last year, and of the eight objectives, the fifth one was to establish a national mechanism, transparency, ombudsperson, committees and so on. Do you think it’s still on the agenda with the federal government today? If not, why?
Ms. Schulz: I’ll take that one while Ms. Pictou Maloney is typing. I have hopes that it is still in their plan. I feel that there has been a lot of discussion about different types of mechanisms versus what it states in the Call for Justice 1.7, thus confusing and delaying that ability to have it implemented in a more timely fashion than what we need. Thank you, Senator Audette.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much for sharing today with us. I know it must be very difficult to share it again and again, and I really appreciate your courage in helping us to understand what you’ve lived and what you’re continuing to live.
I would like your thoughts on the children that some of you mentioned who are currently witnessing violence in their homes and in their communities, but also for those who have experienced the violence indirectly because they’ve lost a person that they cared about. Do you have supports in your communities, or what kind of supports should we consider having there? What needs to happen? Has that been included at all in any of the actions, and should that be something we should address?
[Translation]
Ms. Jourdain: I’ll go first. I see Ms. Pictou Maloney is writing her answer. I would say different resources are available in different communities. The supports in place aren’t consistent across the country. Some communities have more development and obtain more funding, so they can do more when it comes to support measures, non-violence initiatives and psychosocial supports, but the resources vary greatly from one community to another. I’m in Uashat mak Mani-utenam, in eastern Quebec. Five years ago, we didn’t have the services we have now. Funding for psychosocial supports and community health resources is hugely important to keep providing services to community members and to support residents who need help. Oftentimes, it all comes down to funding, which is what makes it possible for communities to provide supports to community members. Our community is in the middle of Sept-Îles. I am on the board of organizations in the city of Sept-Îles, and sometimes I can’t get over just how wide the gap is. I live only a few kilometres away, and yet, my reality is completely different from that of my neighbours in Sept-Îles.
Having to leave the community to access services is a barrier, in and of itself. The services need to be available inside the community. People in the community face difficult realities, even though just a few hundred metres separate us from our neighbours. The realities are incredibly different. Funding is one factor, but so is the whole approach and Canadians’ understanding of the situation. Those aspects are just as important to the process, in my view.
When I talk about the realities community members face, people don’t realize that their neighbours right next door are struggling. The reality of First Nations isn’t understood, even when people interact with community members and live right next to them.
[English]
[Read by Ms. Mugny]
Ms. Pictou Maloney: Self-determined supports by those impacted is the most key. They must be dignified and culturally safe, respecting the autonomy of matriarchs and sovereign nations in knowing how they need to heal and feel safe. Understand also that some communities are not safe, especially when domestic issues exile women and children from supports to be safe. The violence in the community has to be addressed first before we create programs or they will not be equitable.
Senator Clement: My name is Bernadette Clement. I’m from the city of Cornwall, which is on the traditional territory of the Mohawk people of Akwesasne.
Thank you for your testimony again today. We honour the emotional labour you have put into this process.
I want to follow up on Senator Hartling’s question. What should the levels of government —any and all levels of government —be doing most urgently and usefully at this time to support the work of the inquiry? I know you’ve spoken of the ombudsman, but what else should we be doing most urgently? It’s a question for anyone who wants to answer. We don’t want dusty reports, and we don’t want to disrespect the labour that has gone in, so what should we be doing right now?
Ms. Schulz: Thank you, senator. I’ll put in a really quick one. I think it’s talking to those on the ground, doing the work, the grassroots — not to reinvent the wheel that the national inquiry did, because they did a marvellous job on their reporting, but we’ve had a pandemic. We’ve had all those different changes in between. Truly listen to the people who are doing the work and who have lived experience before any other either government or organization. It’s those people who are seeing it. I would say that can be done immediately, for sure.
[Read by Ms. Mugny]
Ms. Pictou Maloney: Engaging families so they know what they are doing is fulfilling the needs and respecting the lived experience, expertise and agency of Indigenous women and girls.
Senator Christmas: I’ll ask a quick question to Ms. Jourdain. You mentioned in your earlier remarks that the Quebec police refuse to serve the Innu people, I presume, in their language of choice. Could you elaborate why that situation is?
[Translation]
Ms. Jourdain: My Mohawk sister Melanie Morrison told me that, in the Montreal area, families received service in English, not in their mother tongue. It’s a much more French-speaking environment, and French-speaking police forces refuse even to speak English to families when following up. I brought it up as an example of how people aren’t being served in one of the official languages. That’s why I mentioned it.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jourdain.
The time for this panel is now complete. I would like to thank Ms. Jourdain, Ms. Pictou Maloney and Ms. Schulz for joining us today. Your testimony was powerful and moving. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous strength, courage and resiliency demonstrated.
I also want to apologize again to Ms. Pictou Maloney for the sound issues. I want her to know that she has my personal commitment to invite her again in the fall as we work on a longer-term study.
I will introduce our next panel of witnesses: from the Métis National Council, Cassidy Caron, President; from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, Natan Obed, President; and from the Assembly of First Nations, Women’s Council Representative Brenda Vanguard and Director of the Justice Sector Julie McGregor.
I want to take a minute to talk about how this panel will work. President Caron, President Obed and Ms. Vanguard will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes each. Once the remarks are over, we will move to a question and answer session of approximately three minutes per senator. I want to remind everyone that the meeting will end at 4:00. Since we have limited time, I ask that you please try to be brief and to the point wherever possible. To keep us on track, I will let witnesses know when they have one minute left on their allocated time for remarks. Similarly, I will let senators and witnesses know when they have one minute left in the period for questions and answers. Thank you for your understanding.
Senators in the room who have a question should raise your hand. Those on Zoom should use the “raised hand” feature. You will then be acknowledged by the clerk or me.
Without further delay, I invite President Caron to give her remarks.
Cassidy Caron, President, Métis National Council: Thank you, everyone, for the invitation to be with you all today. I am calling from far outside the Métis Nation Homeland this morning. I am in New York on the traditional territories of the Lenape peoples.
I want to begin by acknowledging the incredible amount of work done on this file by my colleagues at Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, or LFMO, who have been the file lead on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and people on behalf of the Métis Nation.
The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls contains 231 Calls for Justice, including 29 Métis-specific Calls for Justice. However, recognizing that more could be done to understand, highlight and address the specific needs of Métis families, the LFMO hosted a series of grassroots and leadership engagement sessions to develop priorities and identify Métis-specific needs and best practices geared towards Métis-specific programs and services, systemic change and targeted actions to address issues surrounding the tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
In response to and to supplement the national inquiry’s final report, LFMO released its own report, which includes 62 Calls for Change, or Miskotahâ, which were developed with the objective of operationalizing tangible actions that would effect meaningful, long-term change with respect to Métis MMIWG.
In the fall of 2019, when federal work began on developing the 2021 National Action Plan, LFMO began engaging leaders and community members from across the homeland on this issue. Following those engagement sessions, which explored implementation opportunities, the LFMO established a Métis Nation Working Group to move our work forward, focusing on the development of a Métis-specific action plan.
For over 18 months, the Métis Nation Working Group met weekly, engaging in collaborative, cooperative and dynamic processes to create Weaving Miskotahâ.
Weaving Miskotahâ serves as the Métis Nation’s implementation framework for the National Inquiry final report’s Calls for Justice and the 62 calls for Miskotahâ.
[Technical difficulties].
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, Ms. Caron. We’re having interpretation problems.
For now, we’ll go to our next witness, President Natan Obed, with the hope that we’ll maybe have a chance to go back to Ms. Caron if we get the technical issues worked out.
President Obed, please go ahead.
Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Nakurmiik. Thank you very much for having me this afternoon.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami is the national organization that represents the 65,000 Inuit who live in Canada. The majority of Inuit live in Inuit Nunangat, which is our homeland, and it encompasses 51 communities across nearly one third of Canada’s landmass and over 60% of Canada’s coastline.
I want to start by thanking all those who participated in the national inquiry and all who led and helped administer the inquiry and the incredible amount of work that culminated in the final report and the Calls for Justice — and it has not stopped there. Despite the ongoing conversation about how much work has or has not been done, there remain organizations dedicated to its implementation, and family members, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike, who still push for the implementation of the Calls for Justice.
In this ongoing work, we at ITK have worked very closely with Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada; the National Inuit Youth Council; the Inuit Circumpolar Council; and our land claims regions, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik, Makivik Corporation and the Nunatsiavut government.
The report was released in June 2019. The ITK board, in its next meeting, endorsed the Calls for Justice, including the 46 Inuit-specific Calls for Justice, and has since tried to think about the work that we do as an institution through the lens of the Calls for Justice, specifically those that are Inuit specific. For the priority areas we have and the work we undertake, we want to ensure that we are doing our part in implementing the final report and in incorporating the hard-fought knowledge and the testimony of so many brave women, girls and gender-diverse people that went into the inquiry process and then, ultimately, the final report. Over 2,380 family members, survivors of violence, experts and knowledge keepers shared their stories with the commissioners over the two years of cross-country public hearings and evidence gathering.
We at ITK tried our best to listen and to incorporate those truths into the ways in which we advocate, the ways in which we understand how we create positions and also how we work with the Government of Canada moving forward. Preventing violence against Inuit women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people requires Inuit to work together with all levels of government to break intergenerational cycles of violence and address the systemic challenges known to increase violence.
It is with the shared vision to see Inuit women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people live free from all forms of violence that Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada and ITK worked tirelessly to develop the National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People, released on June 3, 2021.
The National Inuit Action Plan instructs government, Inuit land-claim organizations and other respected bodies to move forward with implementing the 46 Inuit-specific Calls for Justice and the larger 231 Calls for Justice in the Final Report of the National Inquiry. We put those actions into 14 different themes, and they are broken down by the responsible parties for implementation of those themes, from the federal level, the provincial/territorial level and then the Inuit-led level, depending upon the specific topic area and the areas of jurisdiction and authorities implicated by each action.
To build on the National Inuit Action Plan, the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, which is a structure we have created with the Government of Canada that is co-chaired by the Prime Minister of Canada and me, has MMIWG as a priority area amongst the different areas that we pledge to work on together. The most recent Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee meeting happened last week, and in it, we renewed our pledge on MMIWG, and we expect an implementation plan for our Inuit-specific action plan to be finalized by June 2022.
We are currently doing our best to implement the actions that we are implicated on, but we need to unlock the federal funding that has been announced and is only slowly being allocated to the work being undertaken. In Budget 2021, I believe $2.2 billion was allocated over five years, but it was done in a diffuse manner across a number of different project areas. As of now, I believe the only tangible outcome from that, beside the administration of the working group meetings, has been roughly $20 million for five Inuit-specific shelters that has flowed to Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, and they have used the partnership with land claim regions and with CHMC to work to implement that shelter area.
We know there are solutions that can help break the cycle of violence. We know we need to engage with our communities, men and boys, and different levels of government to just change the way we perceive action and the way we undertake action. The final report is very instructive in many ways, but it also challenges us to reimagine the world we live in and the ways in which we think about the threat of violence and the way violence actually permeates through our society right in front of our very faces, in many ways.
I still believe that there is a lot of work we can do to understand the final report and the work that was contained within it, because it really is a culmination of so many people who bravely put forward their stories that would then allow us to understand this issue in a way that we could never otherwise understand it. It is up to us to honour that bravery and also that bond that we have as people who are able to act to make change, understand how to change systems and actually follow through with those changes.
Thank you for the time. I look forward to further questions.
The Chair: Thank you, President Obed.
I would now invite Ms. Vanguard to make her opening remarks.
Brenda Vanguard, Women’s Council Representative, Assembly of First Nations: Good afternoon, chair, deputy chair and committee members. I’m from the Treaty 6 territory of Alberta. I come from a First Nation called Kehewin Cree Nation. I am also Alberta’s rep for the AFN Women’s Council. I am happy to be here to contribute to the view of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
The Assembly of First Nations supports the family-first principle in all the work we do on the MMIWG2s+ file.
We believe that it’s important that the implementation of the 231 Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry Final Report and the National Action Plan: Ending Violence against Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ reflects the voices of those who have for many years been advocating for the health and safety of our women and girls.
In 2021, the AFN Women’s Council carried out a national engagement process in all 10 AFN regions for the development of the First Nation National Action Plan. The AFN Women’s Council strongly believes in listening to survivors and families in what is needed to end violence against First Nations women, girls, two-spirited and gender-diverse people. The AFN Women’s Council worked with the regions to host 85 virtual sessions across Canada, with 1,144 participants. This input from First Nations survivors of gender-based violence and families of missing and murdered loved ones has led to the development of the First Nations action plan entitled Breathing Life into the Calls of Justice.
The First Nations action plan provides a framework to immediately address the needs raised by survivors and families during our engagement sessions. The framework is national in scope and meant to work together to end violence against First Nations, women, girls and gender-diverse people.
The key action is to increase support and wraparound services for survivors and families when they are in crisis and as aftercare support provided by First Nations. These services and supports need to be provided regardless of jurisdictional realities, as we have heard of many situations where a loved one went missing and experienced violence in another jurisdiction.
Prevention activities also need to be supported to address the root of violence within First Nations while also ensuring that program design is driven by a strategy that First Nations know will work.
We recognize in having these conversations that there is a lot of work ahead of us for healing as individuals, families and First Nations. We know that the impact of colonial policies and genocide experienced by First Nations has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma.
The First Nations action plan incorporates the regional report to respect and reflect the work that has been ongoing in each region. The First Nation action plan also includes actions raised during the engagement sessions that have a national scope and are grouped into four areas from the 231 Calls for Justice. They include justice, human security, health and wellness, and culture as safety.
The AFN’s Women’s Council continues to advocate that voices of families be heard in the process of implementing the National Action Plan. It has been almost three years since the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released their final report and the 231 Calls for Justice. The AFN Women’s Council supports the many survivors and family members who want to see greater action in implementing the National Action Plan and the 231 Calls for Justice.
The level of violence our people experience is unacceptable. It is time First Nation women and girls and the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people see real, on-the-ground changes with respect to ending the violence against Indigenous women and girls and the 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.
The root causes of domestic and intimate partner violence are complex and span multiple generations. For real change to happen, it will take commitments to meaningful action from all levels of government and institutions, like police, the justice system, health care providers and educational institutions, as well as the willingness to be held accountable to the First Nations people and communities they serve. Hiy hiy. Thank you.
I’ll defer questions to Julie McGregor, since she’s been working in these areas that I mentioned. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Vanguard.
We’ll go back to President Caron to complete her remarks.
Ms. Caron: I’ll pick up where I left off. I was talking about our Weaving Miskotahâ report which highlights the Métis-led work already under way in response to the National Inquiry’s Calls for Justice and the Métis Nation’s Calls for Change and outlines programs and progress achieved to date. All of this work was done in response to calls from our elders and our community members who are ready to see action and ready to see progress made on the Calls to Justice that were advanced through the Final Report of the National Inquiry.
Action is long overdue, and it needs to be taken now. To that end, in partnership with the Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak, the Métis National Council is prioritizing real action on the tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. We are ready to move, and that’s exactly what we will be doing.
However, we do recognize the important role that all governments can play in implementing the Calls to Justice and contributing to moving the needle on substantive equity. As many of you may be aware, the permanent bilateral mechanism within the Canada-Métis Nation Accord provides one promising avenue for Canada and the Métis Nation to work in partnership to address shared priorities.
This year, justice, including MMIWG, will be one of those priorities. We hope that this prioritization will create space to expedite the implementation of Weaving Miskotahâ, which contains numerous priorities, objectives and measurable indicators of progress specific to justice and policing that can inform a shared action agenda, reporting and evaluation frameworks, and transparent accountability mechanisms to ensure that real forward progress actually happens.
To be sure, ongoing advocacy, investment and commitment to systemic change will all be required to substantively increase the safety, security and well-being of all Métis and ultimately end the ongoing tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people once and for all.
Our communities have the answers, and I’m extremely proud to stand with Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak and all our Indigenous relations, including the AFN and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, to ensure the most important of issues are meaningfully addressed now and always. I look forward to Canada’s continued partnership along our pathway and to co-developing concrete plans to fully implement Weaving Miskotahâ through our permanent bilateral mechanism.
Thank you.
The Chair: We will now move to our question and answer session. We’ll start with Senator Christmas.
Senator Christmas: I’d like to thank the leadership of our national Indigenous organizations in speaking to the whole issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.
I was also very pleased to see that each of our distinct peoples have developed national action plans in response to the national inquiry. My question to each of the leaders is, can you outline the progress or the immediate actions that have taken place to date, realizing that we’re only three years out? Could you advise the committee on what actions have taken place in the Métis and Inuit and First Nation action plans?
Ms. Caron: Thank you. We haven’t actually had the ability to track any of the progress that has been made. We released the Weaving Miskotahâ Report at the end of last summer and haven’t been able to make too much progress on that.
One of the first actions that we want to move forward on is establishing the culturally safe and strengths-based processes and protocols for gathering research and data. Without those pieces and without the ability to gather, maintain and monitor our data, we actually won’t know how much we are moving forward. Those are some of the pieces that we are working through right now, and again, moving forward through our permanent bilateral mechanism process hopefully this spring to establish actual concrete ways to move forward with the federal government to implementing these actions.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. Caron. President Obed?
Mr. Obed: Nakurmiik. Thank you for the question, senator.
I’ll start with governance. We at ITK have tried to incorporate the Calls for Justice and the principles that are contained within the final report in the way in which we build our strategic plans, and the way that we go about our work on things like housing or suicide prevention or education, trying to take the knowledge that we now have and the Calls for Justice that we would like to implement and incorporate them into our existing scopes of work. That is a process that is ongoing but already has changed the way that we make decisions and puts a greater emphasis on 2SLGBTQQIA+ Inuit and the way in which we do our work.
I think of the work we’re doing on child sexual abuse in relation to the implementation of our National Inuit Suicide Prevention Strategy, which overlaps completely with the work around child sexual abuse within the national inquiry’s scope.
I also think of the Qanuippitaa? Inuit Health Survey, which is doing its first iteration of data collection in the Inuvialuit region just this month and started earlier this winter. The summary data from this Qanuippitaa survey will allow us to understand our populations in much greater detail, especially from the gendered perspective, so as to then create better policies and solutions for the challenges that we know exist in general.
We also understand that the work is ongoing for shelters, and the federal commitments for shelters have allowed for Inuit land claim regions to work with Pauktuutit and CMHC to imagine where those shelters can best be built both in Inuit Nunangat and in urban centres such as Ottawa.
The work is ongoing, but there is still a pause and a hold on a lot of this because of the overarching, bureaucratic nature of the federal government’s response and the sometimes overlapping and difficult-to-understand tiers of the government’s response, and then what is supposedly the Indigenous people’s response, and then the lack of clarity around funding.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, President. Can I ask the AFN representatives, either Ms. Vanguard or Ms. McGregor, to comment on the First Nations Action Plan and progress being made?
Julie McGregor, Director, Justice Sector, Assembly of First Nations: Thank you, Senator Christmas.
We have to echo a lot of the comments made by President Obed and Ms. Caron on the progress on the First Nations Action Plan, Breathing Life Into the Calls for Justice. Throughout the engagement we’ve had with First Nations families and survivors, they don’t see a lot of action on the ground in terms of implementation. There are multiple reasons for that, but it is a highly bureaucratic process, including in terms of funding. The trickle down is very slow to First Nations, which is nothing new, but it’s also very slow in terms of dedicated funding for priority areas like wraparound services for families and survivors, prevention, healing, all of the key areas that we’ve sort of highlighted within our report. There doesn’t seem to be that much movement thus far, having been a year. It will be a year in June since we’ve released our First Nations Action Plan.
Certainly, there’s work ongoing with the AFN that touches upon the Calls for Justice. For instance, on child welfare, there’s been a lot of work by the AFN done for that, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and languages. All of these speak to the Calls for Justice, but for the immediate needs, the priority needs that we’ve identified within the Breathing Life Into the Calls for Justice, we don’t see that on-the-ground sort of impact yet.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Ms. McGregor.
Senator Patterson: Thank you to all the witnesses for very informative presentations.
I’d like to ask Mr. Obed two questions, if I may. First of all, thank you for outlining the work you’ve spearheaded to create the National Inuit Action Plan following the inquiry and how you’re working on turning that into an action plan on 14 themes by June of this year. You and the Prime Minister recently announced the formal acceptance of the Inuit Nunangat Policy. You’ve been working on that for some years at the Inuit-Crown partnership table. Can you explain how that new policy might help turn the Action Plan into concrete results and how it’s going to fit with and hopefully augment the National Inuit Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, et cetera?
Mr. Obed: Thank you, senator, for the question.
I’ll start with just a short overview clarity piece. Inuit do not fall under the Indian Act. We have a very specific relationship with the Crown, which is different than First Nations or Métis, which then in a federal bureaucratic context sometimes gets lost. We work well with Crown-Indigenous Relations, with Indigenous Services, perhaps with a couple other departments, but there are 30-plus different departments and a myriad of interpretations on how to involve Indigenous peoples when it comes to implementing legislation, implementing programs or implementing policies. From the very start, from the initial budgetary announcements to then the Treasury Board submissions, to the Treasury Board responses to departments that then allow for funding to flow, and then the terms and conditions that go out to the provinces or territories, or non-governmental agents, Inuit often weren’t able to access programs, even if they are described and articulated as for Indigenous peoples.
This policy sets the stage for all government departments to understand the way in which Inuit fit from a constitutional level, from a land claims level and also from a human rights level, which will allow for the government of Canada to make better decisions and to provide the implementation of our rights in a more holistic way, even if we aren’t hand-holding federal departments and federal bureaucrats every step of the way through. I think of something like justice in policing, and the implementation of calls of justice in relation to that section, and then the particular act and then also the policies around First Nations policing, and First Nations and Indigenous policing, or First Nations and Inuit policing, depending upon the terminology, depending upon where you are and what time of day. We want to cut through all of that and try to get the federal government to make more informed, better decisions about how it works with us and how it builds interventions for Indigenous Peoples.
I see the Inuit Nunangat Policy being applied to all areas of implementation, especially in departments where there hasn’t been a traditional working relationship with Inuit. I also think about the things around governance, language and research. There are diffuse responsibilities that also go into central agencies of the federal government, whether it be Polar Knowledge Canada in the research, or institutions like Canadian Institutes of Health Research or Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. There is a broad application that will allow for the work to be implemented here for MMIWG in a more complete way.
Senator Patterson: You’ve said, Mr. Obed, that this is an ongoing challenge we’re all wanting to work on. You’re now in your third term. You’ve appeared before this committee, and others, on many issues. We have worked with you before. I’d like to get your advice. How do you think this Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples could help support Inuit going forward in all these challenges of turning plans into action? Would you have any advice about how we can help going forward?
Mr. Obed: I think the mechanisms of the federal system are so minute and so specific to the institution that we often get lost within a misunderstanding of what we’re actually here for. Sometimes, whether it be Senate standing committees or whether it be the way in which pieces of legislation pass through the House of Commons and then the Senate, the opportunities for influence and the likelihood of particular pieces of work bearing fruit, sometimes in retrospect, seem like it was almost for naught. We spent a lot of time and energy chasing things or tracing structures that really weren’t central to the work that we wanted to achieve and that was understood as being the goal by the Indigenous peoples’ pushing.
The Senate can play a productive role in utilizing the governance model of the federal system in order to help implement and also help us understand and push us along in ways that perhaps we wouldn’t have otherwise. Perhaps individual senators can do that in a much more concrete way than Senate committees, but I would say that the outcomes of Senate committees and the advice and the conclusions that you form from these types of hearings and the way you articulate them can lend meaningful support to the work that we are all trying to achieve together.
Senator Patterson: So we should hear from you again as your June deadline approaches and passes and get your advice on how we can try to move the federal mountain is what I take from that?
Mr. Obed: I would be happy to appear again and to provide more perspective on how to get to where we all want to get to.
Senator Patterson: Qujannamiik, thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all of the witnesses for your presentations.
In my life before the Senate, I was a Legal Aid lawyer, and my questions are going to involve poverty and the pain and vulnerability that that brings into people’s lives. I have three questions; I’ll ask them and get out of the way for anyone who will want to answer them.
As you likely know, the current poverty rate for First Nations people, Inuit and Métis across Canada is one in four, which is roughly two-and-a-half times the rate for other Canadians. This, of course, comes from the long and well-documented history of colonialism and social, cultural and economic marginalization faced by Indigenous peoples across Canada.
There are current programs for social assistance, like the On-reserve Income Assistance Program, limited to residents on reserve, status Indigenous peoples in the Yukon and only available to those who can show that they have no other source of funding to meet their basic needs. This would include many Indigenous peoples, but in particular Inuit and Métis peoples.
Can you please speak on the effects, accessibility problems and inadequacies of current social assistance programs in alleviating poverty in your communities?
My second question is regarding the current government appearing before the Finance Committee and working with AFN and other First Nations government partners to develop a needs-based approach to the existing income assistance program for people living on reserve. I would like to know if you or any of your families in the community have been consulted by Indigenous Services Canada as they were developing this process.
My third question is regarding specifically Call to Action 4.5 on guaranteed livable income. I would appreciate your comments on that and whether your organizations are working to implement that. How would you like to see that implemented?
The Chair: Would any of our panellists like to start?
Mr. Obed: I will start.
Section 4 of our Inuit Action Plan is “Economic Security,” and in it we outline the federal-, provincial-, territorial- and Inuit-led actions in relation to not only poverty but also food security.
ITK created and passed an Inuit Nunangat Food Security Strategy in 2021. In our pre-budget submission for the 2022 budget, we asked for funds for implementation of that strategy. Unfortunately, there were no funds allocated in the federal budget for the implementation of our Food Security Strategy, although we continue to work with Crown-Indigenous Relations, Indigenous Services Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to ensure that they are aware of the food insecurity rates of up to 70% and the challenges that come from that, not only in violence but also from a wide variety of socio-economic conditions.
We are in full support of the Call for Justice in relation to the national basic income model. We are working through our ITK process to understand how that might be articulated within Inuit Nunangat. We await further participation of the federal government, as this is not something that we would have the necessary jurisdiction in our current governance model to be able to implement ourselves.
We need to do more to support the participation of Inuit women in the economy and hope that there are Inuit-specific sections in the federal government’s action plan for women in the economy so as not to just marginalize Indigenous peoples within the sections that are only Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations, and that if there are broader things that are happening for gender-based action by the Government of Canada, that it not be for Indigenous people because sometimes —especially in the international lens —we’ve seen that Indigenous people are just not thought of when it comes to the gender-focused work of the Government of Canada.
We need to do more to ensure that our social assistance programs with provinces and territories work more effectively. We need to ensure that there are things that we do for sexual harassment in the workforce and for breaking down any barriers for women in the workforce that currently exist. We also need to do more within our communities for traditional economies, and especially harvesting economies or other things that are provided that are just not well captured in the dominant valuation of socio-economic status in our communities.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Obed. Would anyone else like to respond?
Ms. Caron: I can try to answer some of those questions. There were quite a few there.
With regard to the social and economic marginalization faced by Métis, we have a long way to go. As Métis, we have been in a space that we often talk about as being identified as a legal lacuna, not knowing whether we fall to federal or provincial jurisdiction. We only really had that solved in 2016 with the Daniels decision. From 2016 until now, we have come so far in making progress with the federal government and being able to implement different programs, services, legislation and policies. We have moved the needle on things such as basic needs for living, such as housing, education and economic development, but it’s really only been six years so we do have far to go within that space.
To your question on the guaranteed livable income, when we were working with the Métis Nation Working Group to develop our National Action Plan, we sifted through the 231 Calls for Justice to really identify the ones we can make progress on ourselves. That one did not get talked about within our working group because we were, as I said, focused on what our communities can move on now. That one is obviously something that we will need to work on with the federal government, and we will do so when we move forward through our PBM process.
Ms. McGregor: Thank you, senator. I can speak to this a little bit, but I can’t go into great detail. I know you had a question about the approach and whether Indigenous Services Canada had been in contact with the AFN, but that’s just not my sector or the file I work on. However, we would be happy to provide a written answer to the question following the session today.
I will say that the AFN supports the implementation of all 231 Calls for Justice, including the national basic income model and guaranteed livable income. In terms of taking a look at it from a needs-based lens, it would need to be a larger scope than just looking at the numbers. There are so many factors, whether it’s social assistance on reserve, being limited to reserve — those don’t reflect the enormous issues with respect to lack of housing, lack of land base and lack of economic development, even, that sees Indigenous or First Nations people have to move off reserve or have different sorts of arrangements in order to stay connected with their communities.
If you’re looking at a needs-based approach that is sustainable and understands the history of the poverty that First Nations people have endured for years because of the Indian Act and discriminatory policies that have been and continue to be applicable on reserve, then you would need to look at all of those things in assessing what is needs-based and what is appropriate for each community.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I want to extend a heartfelt thanks for the work you are doing day in and day out and for telling us about your national action plans, specifically for Métis, Inuit and the Assembly of First Nations. I plan to examine all the information carefully to figure out, with your help, what the next steps should be.
I would like to hear any answers you have afterwards, especially about how to support women living on the street, marginalized women and children living in poverty—all of those people who have fallen through the cracks. We need to make sure that the proposed investment of just over $2 billion to help missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls is spent wisely.
I am open to any examples you have, or if you know of ways to question, not just the federal government, but also provincial and territorial governments as well as municipalities, I would be happy to hear all of it. I will be here for the next 25 years. If you want to keep the dialogue going, I will be here.
Congratulations, Ms. Caron. I am proud of you, and your leadership is to be commended.
[English]
Ms. McGregor, it was good to see you again.
Ms. Caron: I’ll go first. Thank you, Senator Audette. I look forward to working alongside you for the next 25 years, as well, because while 25 years is a long amount of time, for the amount of change that needs to occur, I think it’s a reasonable timeline.
We do need to work to make change now. For us, the investments into housing for Métis people and understanding how that will affect our citizens on the ground in our communities really will only be understood when working in partnership with us as Métis people, with us at the Métis National Council and with our governing members who have direct communication and links to our citizens on the ground in communities. That is the only way we’ll ever be able to know if that money is actually making a difference in the lives of our people.
Something I’ve struggled with in the first seven months of my presidency is that we have no ways of actually collecting and monitoring the data on how and if we are actually making changes in the lives of our people. That is something I’m absolutely committed to. Again, in the next 25 years, maybe we can get something going to be able to do that work and work directly with our citizens to understand if these dollars are actually making a change in their lives.
There are a lot of ways we can do that. We see different models of data collection, especially through First Nations Information Governance Centre which is doing some really incredible work. We don’t have that for the Métis nation. Without being able to collect the baseline data, we’ll never know how far we’re moving ahead. That’s one tangible way we’ll be able to understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Obed: Julie, why don’t you go ahead.
Ms. McGregor: Thank you, President Obed.
Similar to what President Caron said, we need proper data collection and analysis using the Indigenous and First Nations lens.
What you heard from Ms. Vanguard this morning from the AFN Women’s Council is that the core of their being about this work is that it does have to go back to families and survivors. If we hear from them that they are seeing changes and that the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls are being handled in a way that is accountable back to the families and the survivors, then we’ll know we have made some progress.
In terms of how we can support the marginalized women properly, all three organizations have now gone through this process of developing priority areas for the National Action Plan. We all very much took that very seriously, going back to our communities. In the AFN’s case, we did national engagement through 10 regions, hearing from families and survivors directly. We have taken our accountability very seriously, and in doing that, we’ve recommended to the government that there be an independent mechanism for accountability for the Calls for Justice and for the implementation of the National Action Plan. Ultimately, that accountability should be going back to the families of survivors and to the communities served by these services.
In terms of an accountability mechanism for this framework, you heard this earlier from witnesses today. They spoke to an ombudsperson and a human rights tribunal that are specifically for Indigenous people. We support those. We said within our report that there has to be greater accountability at all levels. Meegwetch.
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, but our time for this panel is complete. We have a hard stop at 4 p.m., unfortunately. So we la’s lin, thank you to President Caron, President Obed, as well as Ms. Vanguard and Ms. McGregor. We really appreciate you taking the time to join us today to discuss this very important and pressing issue. This meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)