THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 1, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021 by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin First Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot. I’m from Saskatchewan.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick, unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario, from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator White: Judy White, proud Mi’kmaq from Ktaqmkuk, better known as the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone. Today we’ll continue our study to examine the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 2021, also known as UNDRIP, by Canada and First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The committee is hearing from witnesses to further refine its study topic.
With that, I would now like to introduce our first witness. From the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada. Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Zinger. Our witness will provide opening remarks of approximately 10 minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators.
[Translation]
Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Hello, senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee. I welcome your timely and important study of Canada’s implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
The adoption of the UN Declaration into Canadian law is a rare and significant achievement as Canada does not usually incorporate international human rights standards or declarations directly into domestic law. Adherence to the act promises to fundamentally transform Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.
As correctional investigator, my mandate is limited to federal corrections. My office provides independent oversight of the Correctional Service of Canada. I serve as the ombuds for federally sentenced individuals. My office falls under the public safety portfolio, but I operate independently and at arm’s length from the department and minister. We investigate individual and systemic problems of incarcerated persons to ensure sentences are administered fairly, humanely and in compliance with Canada’s domestic and international human rights framework.
[English]
With respect to the focus of your study, the federal correctional system is mainly implicated in the actions listed under shared priority 60. These include the following four things: reducing the disproportionate Indigenous population in correctional facilities; expanding existing section 81 healing lodge capacity; providing effective, culturally competent and nondiscriminatory intervention and reintegration support for Indigenous offenders; and ensuring programs, policies and practices responsive to the special needs of Indigenous people in corrections.
These are not new commitments by any means. They are part of a series of calls to action, many of which have been issued and reissued many times over in a succession of reports by my office and, more prominently, in commissions of inquiry such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Progress on addressing Indigenous overrepresentation has been slow, frustrating and disappointing. In the last 25 years, nearly every government has pledged to reduce or eliminate Indigenous overrepresentation, and every one of them has failed. My office reported 10 years ago that Indigenous people represented 23% of the overall federally incarcerated population. Today, the proportion of incarcerated Indigenous people has reached 32%. Even more alarming, Indigenous women now account for half of all women in Canadian penitentiaries.
The indigenization of our correctional system is deeply embedded in the systemic racism, discrimination and disadvantage that disproportionately bring Indigenous people into contact with the criminal justice system. Our prison system, which predates Confederation, did not create this problem, but it has long served to keep Indigenous people in this country marginalized, over-criminalized and over-incarcerated.
The system itself appears to perpetuate conditions of disadvantage and discrimination. On nearly every measure of correctional performance, such as time spent behind bars before first release, overrepresentation in maximum-security institutions, over-involvement in use of force incidents, placement in the new administrative segregation regime, higher reoffending and return-to-custody rates and higher rates of prison suicide attempts and self-injury, the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in federal custody continues to widen.
In revisiting these issues, my latest investigation found that only one new community section 81 healing lodge had been created since the office’s original Spirit Matters report, which was tabled in Parliament as a special report in 2013. This is the report that my predecessor tabled. Furthermore, 10 years later, there are still no healing lodges in Ontario, the Atlantic region or the North and no community-run facilities in the Pacific region.
We found that state-run healing lodges are better funded, staffed and resourced than Indigenous-run section 81 healing lodges. In fact, the federal government spends approximately two times more on Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, or state-run healing lodges, or 40% less per resident in community versus state-run facilities. A two-tiered healing lodge system means that these facilities are in constant competition with one another for resources, staff and residents. They also run at full capacity.
With respect to the shared priority of CSC providing culturally competent interventions, I have reported that CSC’s signature interventions in Indigenous corrections, programs like Pathways or the Indigenous Intervention Centres, continue to be mainly penitentiary-based. The selection criteria for participation in these interventions are so restrictive that most Indigenous people under federal sentence never actually benefit from the Indigenous continuum of care interventions established in their name. Less than 8% of the incarcerated Indigenous population participates in an Indigenous-specific intervention.
CSC’s latest Indigenous Corrections Accountability Framework, which serves as the agency’s annual report on progress specific to Indigenous corrections, states that:
Trends indicate that the overrepresentation of Indigenous people is likely to increase in coming years. As a result, CSC is strengthening efforts related to Indigenous Interventions, and ultimately, reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people.
With respect, I fail to see how more of the same will move the needle on Indigenous overrepresentation. Without concrete, specific and actionable targets that commit the service to reducing the flow of Indigenous people entering or returning to a federal prison, we are unlikely to see any substantive progress. Funding is part of the problem, as less than 3% of the annual expenditure on federal corrections in Canada is dedicated to Indigenous-specific initiatives.
In conducting my latest investigation, Ten Years since Spirit Matters, I concluded that Canada’s penitentiary system retains many of the features and conceits of colonialism. There can be little doubt that the correctional system makes its own contribution to the over-imprisonment of Indigenous people. For the kind of urgent reforms that are necessary, Canada must come to terms with its colonial legacy, embrace a distinctions-based approach to working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people and genuinely engage in reclamation and reconciliation efforts.
I have called on the federal government to devolve responsibilities, resources and control more fully for the care, custody and supervision of Indigenous individuals under sentence back to Indigenous people and communities. I have recommended creation of a new funding model for section 81 healing lodges to achieve funding parity with state-run facilities and to transfer control and ownership of existing state-run healing lodges to Indigenous communities as originally intended. In the interests of equity and fairness, the federal government should create job security and provide additional benefits and supports for elders working inside penitentiaries.
Finally, it is imperative that the Government of Canada make good on the many repeated calls to action and commitments to reduce overrepresentation by implementing an Indigenous decarceration strategy, the general aim of which would be to reallocate resources from penitentiaries to community-based reintegration efforts.
[Translation]
Thank you and I would be happy to take your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Zinger. We will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Dr. Zinger. You’ve called for the decarceration strategy needed from the federal government and the need to implement all 14 of your recommendations in this latest report on Spirit Matters.
Have you received a satisfactory response from any of the ministries highlighted in your report that need to take some action? I’m looking for advice on what we might do in our report. What are the catalysts needed to address the discrimination? This is obviously a chronic problem, and you’ve highlighted very well. Your recommendations, all 14 of them, in my opinion, are unambiguous, specific and very practical. There’s no misunderstanding what must be done.
What can we do to break that intransigence and lack of action that you’ve highlighted?
Mr. Zinger: Senator, this is an important and fundamental question you pose. When I look at the scheme of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and how Canada has gone about trying to implement that international instrument, the pillars are the development of some sort of action plan and then progress reports, which might be annual, to share progress. The key is to look at the action plan that Correctional Service Canada has provided. We were never consulted on that action plan.
I’d like to make a few remarks on that, because I think this is where there’s an opportunity to make progress; otherwise, there’s great potential for complete inertia.
I looked at the overall action plan, and maybe it’s just semantics, but I note that every single shared priority starts with the statement, “The Government of Canada will take the following action in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people,” except for corrections. If I read the introduction to the action plan, it says, “Correctional Service of Canada will continue to . . .” which is very different language to me.
I’ll focus on shared priority 60. There are 11 bullets here, 6 of which are legislative requirements. What the service is telling us here is they will continue to follow the law and the obligations they have that are listed in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For me, that is already quite problematic.
As for the rest, I don’t see anything new that would get me excited to have the service, which is the goals of this. I will read you what the goal is. It is ultimately four things. It’s to contribute to the UN declaration by ensuring self-determination, self-government, recognition of treaty and reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous people. I see nothing in here that tells me that there’s going to be any movement.
That’s where maybe the committee could play a role — to ensure that those action plans have specific timelines, targets and deliverables. It’s as simple as that.
I’ve made the same criticism with respect to mandate letters. There are wonderful mandate letters from the Minister of Public Safety to the Commissioner of Corrections. Everything is there and these are like marching orders for the commissioner, but unfortunately, again, there are no timelines or targets.
Regarding the healing lodge issue, there has been a decade between these two reports, and there have been several commitments by the service to improve the capacity of healing lodges. However, in 10 years, what we’ve seen is one new agreement and 53 new beds.
You would need to say you want many new agreements where the minister enters into some sort of an agreement between either Indigenous communities or Indigenous organizations for the transfer, care, custody and supervision of Indigenous people. You would need more agreements and far more beds made available.
I don’t know whether that’s applicable to other parts of the action plan — it’s not in my jurisdiction to comment on that — but I can tell you that is what’s missing. I think you’d have to be much more precise in what you expect. Elected officials as well as senators, who are actually appointed by elected officials to do the great work you do, need to be much more pointed in how they generate action from the department. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Zinger. We have a fairly healthy list of senators who want to ask questions, so if you can keep questions and answers as concise as possible, that would be helpful so that everyone can get at least one question in.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you so much for being here. That was a very educational presentation for me. I had a prepared question, but my question changed after listening to you speak.
I’m going to need a little history and education myself to understand. How did we end up with a two-tiered system? I don’t understand why there are community healing lodges and state-run healing lodges. I’m interested in that. Could you also elaborate for me what “the colonization model” actually means?
Mr. Zinger: Yes. Back in 1992, the Brian Mulroney government put forward the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Embedded in that piece of legislation — which was quite progressive because it incorporated Charter issues and administrative law principles — were provisions dealing specifically with Indigenous people. Section 81 basically provided the opportunity for the Minister of Public Safety to enter into these agreements. To CSC’s benefit and credit, they initially worked very hard to negotiate some of those agreements. This was very innovative. I think the world was looking at us. Certainly, any country that had issues with Indigenous overrepresentation, like New Zealand and Australia, for example, were really amazed with how Canada approached this. Corrections actually did really good work at the beginning. They created quite a bit of capacity. There were four healing lodges that corrections created with the goal of transferring the healing lodges to Indigenous communities, but they never did. Then under section 84 — there are six of them — the capacity is interesting because the state-run ones have 250 beds, which are not always full, unfortunately, and the capacity for the section 81 beds is 138.
One of the recommendations I made is, since 2019, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act changed to allow the minister to deal not just with Indigenous communities on these agreements but also Indigenous organizations. That means Correctional Service Canada would put in a request for proposals, or RFP, and say any Indigenous organization could try to take it over. There are possibilities there, but it is very difficult for bureaucracy to let go of resources and control; however, that’s what they need to do.
Around 2000 — remember, in 1992, Brian Mulroney enacted this new law — Correctional Service Canada decided to stop seeking out new agreements or building beds in the community and then reprofile all the money on penitentiary-based initiatives, like Pathways and the more recent Indigenous Intervention Centres. That’s the history.
Senator Sorensen: I don’t know if I have time, but at some point I’d like to understand what “the decolonization model” actually means.
Mr. Zinger: I’ll send you an extra copy.
Senator Sorensen: That would be great. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Welcome back, Dr. Zinger. I wish you were singing a new tune, but it’s the same old song, sadly. It must be so frustrating for you, as it is for all of us, to hear that it’s actually not getting any better. It’s getting far worse, even though we have these ambitions and commitments that have been clearly outlined.
I’m trying to get at two pieces of this puzzle. The first is the mass incarceration of Indigenous men and women in particular, which is a result of over-criminalization. There’s a pipeline feeding into this prison system, which you identified as not the reason for the initial over-incarceration. The prison system didn’t pluck those people out of nowhere and put them in there. In that relationship between over-criminalization and mass incarceration, I’d like to understand who is connecting those dots and what needs to be done about that so that we have less of a flow in.
The second piece is the Venus fly trap — which is the prison system — for keeping people there and not enabling the reform and supports that are culturally appropriate, as well as all of the things you described in terms of helping people get out of that Venus fly trap and back into society in a healthy way. We’ve talked a little bit about that, but not about this front end of prevention. These numbers are obscene, tragic and require a rethink on a whole variety of levels. Could you talk about that interface between the over-criminalization and the mass incarceration factor?
Mr. Zinger: Certainly. Thank you. It is part of the problem. It’s very true that if we did more in the community, we might prevent people from coming into contact with the criminal justice system through all sorts of initiatives. It’s clear to me that the problems stem from Indigenous people in Canadian society not benefiting from the same rights that we take for granted. I’m talking, broadly, about human rights, socio-economic rights, cultural rights, political rights and now Indigenous rights. They don’t benefit from the same, so there needs to be some effort in society at large.
My jurisdiction is limited to federal corrections only, so it’s not for me to make recommendations that go outside my legal mandate, but I will tell you that Correctional Service Canada, time and again, keeps telling me and you all that they don’t have control over who is admitted into penitentiaries. That’s partly true. They have no control over who gets sentenced to a federal term, so two years or more. However, they have a lot of leverage through which they could make a contribution to the overrepresentation.
The fact is that corrections is the business of correcting and providing service; that’s why it’s called “Correctional Service Canada.” Perhaps that’s where they are challenged. It’s true that they receive individuals with quite complex and challenging profiles, but in every single important correctional outcome, they don’t seem to actually improve.
This is why we end up with a system where Indigenous people spend a far longer time incarcerated than non-Indigenous people, and why many of them they spend most of that time in maximum security. They are grossly overrepresented there. They are grossly overrepresented in the new administrative segregation regime called Structured Intervention Units. They are more likely to be involuntarily transferred, more likely to attempt suicide, et cetera. The recidivism rates are excessively high — 65% for Indigenous people. They have a duty and obligation to try to turn people around, but it is not happening because the approach they are taking isn’t conducive to success. Pouring more money into it is not likely to improve outcomes.
We must look at bold reforms. This is the challenge for the service. When I talk about devolving a significant portion of the budget of Correctional Service Canada to support community alternatives or even healing lodges run by Indigenous people, that requires incredible leadership, and it is a huge headache. You are talking about hundreds of millions that should be reallocated. It is not new money; that is an important point. You need to turn over four institutions, which are the healing lodges. You need to, probably, shrink your infrastructure and also shrink over time the number of employees to do that reallocation. It is not easy. In government departments — whether it is Correctional Service Canada or any other government department — there is, unfortunately, a bit of a self-serving mentality in the bureaucracy, and it is a huge headache.
Unless politicians, senators and everyone are onside with what needs to be done if we are actually going to move that needle — maybe it will not be me who will be back in 10 years, but whoever is in my role in 10 years will come back and tell you the same. That is what is so unfortunate. That is the history.
There are so many commitments on overrepresentation, some dating back to 1999 — already well over 25 years ago — when the Gladue decision was invoked. At the time, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
By 1997, aboriginal peoples constituted closer to 3 percent of the population of Canada and amounted to 12 percent of all federal inmates . . . .
It further stated: “The figures are stark and reflect what may fairly be termed a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system. . . .” It was 12%; we’re now at 32%. It was a crisis then, at least that is what the Supreme Court of Canada told us, so we are not doing well. Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for being here. It is interesting. After yesterday, Orange Shirt Day, when we saw all the media coverage across the country about how important Indigenous people are, their history and what we need to do, to be listening to this now this morning is depressing. I want to thank you for your great work and those reports.
A few years ago, you came to our Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We were studying federal prisons and got a chance to go visit prisons. Most Canadians do not realize, unless they’ve gone, the situation there, especially with respect to Indigenous people, who don’t have any connection with their healing and how they are going to move forward.
You mentioned in one of your recommendations — and thank you for those reports — the new funding model for the healing lodges for section 81, and also the gap, that there are none in Atlantic Canada or other provinces. Can you expand on that funding model in terms of what it would look like and how it would help the situation?
Mr. Zinger: It is an issue of equity and fairness. My predecessor Howard Sapers issued this report as a special report. We have done very few special reports in the history of our office, which is now over 50 years old. One of the findings was a discrepancy between the funding of CSC-run healing lodges versus those of section 81. When we calculated it, it was basically that the section 81 healing lodges were receiving 60 cents on the dollar. It’s quite a significant gap.
Those healing lodges, run by Indigenous communities, have no choice. They are under the same requirements in terms of delivering what is in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act: safety programming and all of those obligations.
When we got this, we were actually quite surprised that the service responded positively to our recommendations and increased the funding of those healing lodges. For once, we thought that, yes, the service was responding. What we didn’t realize was that, yes, there is a discrepancy here — there are the section 81 healing lodges but also those run by the CSC, and they increased one but also increased the other. So now, 10 years later, it is still 61 cents on the dollar. For me, it should be parity. If you are asking an Indigenous community to do the same job as you are doing, you should receive the same amount of money. The bottom line is that it is discriminatory.
Again, one way of dealing with it is to do what was originally intended, which is transfer those four healing lodges to Indigenous organizations or communities — if the communities want to take part in it — and then fund them exactly as they were under Correctional Service Canada, with the Correctional Service Canada budget. That would be showing equal partnership and not treating Indigenous communities like little NGOs that can do it at some sort of rebate.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Dr. Zinger, and thank you to your team for all of the work you do.
I, for one, will be on the eve of my retirement from this place 10 years from now, and heaven knows I hope we’ll then be far beyond this.
It is almost trite to say that prisons are full of the people whom every other system has failed, to return to the question that Senator Sorensen raised. Part of the colonial issue is that the very same people who end up in prisons are those reviled at every level, and often by the public, so there is not a political or public interest in addressing these issues. Yet we see the impact of this in the prisons, as you have said.
I would like to ask you to speak a bit more about how concretely recommendations from this committee might assist. Senator Hartling mentioned that you came before the Human Rights Committee. The response to the report done by senators there has received virtually no response. In fact, it has shown that the government does not feel any compunction to do so. The response to our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance when we asked Correctional Service Canada to account for where they spent the $9.2 million that they were supposed to receive for external mental health beds showed that they actually just used it to renew contracts that were already in existence. There were no new beds.
You mentioned sections 81 and 84. It is important as well to remind this committee that the vision for the healing lodges was from Indigenous women looking at what needed to be in place for the fastest-growing group, which is Indigenous women. They imagined this as a model that could be applied to anyone coming into the system, to your point that Senator Coyle asked, that sections 81 and 84 in the legislation don’t stipulate that they should be minimum security or the end. In fact, as you know, and you have been directly involved, one of the other issues that Correctional Service Canada has contributed to is the security classification system. Each time Correctional Service Canada has gone to an external source, they have been told they should start people at minimum security, not the levels they use now, so that they can provide more opportunities for people to cascade through. They refused all of those recommendations.
I am aware of some Indigenous First Nations communities right now that are trying to get sections 81 and 84 agreements. The correctional system is not even passing them to the ministerial or public safety department level. They are making decisions and refusing them at that level.
Do you think there should be a clear statement, to Senator Arnot’s point, with recommendations? The recommendations could include things such as the following: There must be a target that within the next year, 1%, 2%, or 10% of the population of Indigenous people must be reduced; there must be this many section 81 individualized and perhaps group agreements, however many you deem might be appropriate; there must be the return of those four section 81 healing lodges to the communities with a clear plan of how to devolve that responsibility; and there must be a clear indication that the monies that are supposed to be allocated for external beds, whether or not it is mental health beds, be allocated.
Are there figures that you could suggest to this committee that might assist us with making those kinds of concrete, specific, time-focused recommendations?
Mr. Zinger: First, I agree with all the comments you made.
That is the conversation that should happen between the Minister of Public Safety and the commissioner — to say, “If we are going to effect change, how quickly can you do it and how could it be done?” then go through that list.
You could have targets that said that in 10 years, a significant portion — say, $500 million — of the services’ budget would be transferred to Indigenous communities. Then you could sit down and say, “How can this be done? How can the Minister of Public Safety support the commissioner?” It will not be an easy thing to do. It could be done through attrition because of the aging workforce of the service. There are ways of dealing with some issues that will impact employees.
There are short-term, medium-term and long-term initiatives that you could have. You must put in time frames and have a mandate letter with exactly what the government is asking you to do, not just broad goals and aspirational things. As any deputy head in this town, there is a performance-payable bonus when you check off items on your mandate letter, but this must be more directed. That is part of the solution.
As I say, you want to be able to make clear progress. With the language you have right now, you could see it. Let me refer you to another document, which is the third annual progress report. I read it. On shared priority 60, you have listed “Correctional Services Canada” and the current status is “Implementation ongoing.” In the last three years, I haven’t seen much action based on the service that has actually impacted those key performance indicators and outcomes that I mentioned before. Yes, they are processing people more quickly by doing good case management in their Indigenous Intervention Centres, but that is good case management and has nothing to do with Indigenous — it’s just that they are processing people. On top of that, they are preventing many people from reaching those pathways. They are making all sorts of barriers, so if you are gang-related or high-risk, you cannot access these things. The vast majority do not benefit from any of the better practices that are implemented.
The Chair: Dr. Zinger, could you tell us what some of the key barriers to successful reintegration are? How does, for example, a lack of housing and employment contribute to higher recidivism among Indigenous people? How do experiences with residential schools, day schools, the Sixties Scoop or Millennium Scoop or harmful state interactions add to this crisis?
Mr. Zinger: That is not an easy one to answer, Mr. Chair, in five minutes or less.
I do sympathize with Correctional Service Canada because I can tell you who those men and women are who enter the federal system. There is an excessively high prevalence of mental health issues and a high prevalence of cognitive deficits and people coming in with substance abuse, low educational achievements and low vocational skills. To be able to address all of these things is a real challenge. These things I just listed are often more prevalent among Indigenous people because of all of the trauma and socio-economic deprivation that they lived through and the historical factors such as residential schools and so on. It is no easy task.
I do sympathize because every time I go into penitentiaries, I am often shocked by what I see, but I certainly see many dedicated, professional people working in these institutions.
There are all sorts of barriers. For example, let’s take infrastructure. That is an easy one. Canada still has three penitentiaries that are over 100 years old. Two of those are filled with Indigenous people. One is Saskatchewan Penitentiary, and the oldest one in Canada is Stony Mountain. It is very difficult to do good corrections in these outdated, medieval institutions.
At Stony Mountain, every time I go there, I am impressed by the quality of the staff. But there are challenges. They are enormous. Those institutions are repressive and outdated. They were built when the correctional philosophy was very much punitive. They are not conducive to effective corrections, healing or turning somebody’s life around. They are dehumanizing. The infrastructure is one of those barriers.
Canada must come to grips with the fact that the average penitentiary in Canada is about 50 years old. They are concrete with small yards and very little light. They are not meant to deal with issues such as mental health and cognitive deficits, and the infrastructure is not equipped to provide programming or vocational skills that are transferable to the community.
When Indigenous people are caught in such a system, it is tough. There are things like inmate pay. Inmate pay was set back in 1981, and it has never, ever increased. There is no rate of inflation. It was $6.90 — the highest rate — back then, and it is still $6.90. If I asked the senators here if your own salary had been frozen since 1981, wouldn’t you be a little concerned and find that to be unfair? That is the system we have. When you look at Indigenous pay, you will see that very few of them receive the highest level of pay. It is disproportionate. Again, there are issues there.
CORCAN, the prison industry that is supposed to provide the best programming for individuals to acquire new skills, is also outdated. Of all CORCAN jobs, 80% are in the textile industry. It is basically sewing machines. That does not provide you many skills to transfer into today’s economy. With respect to education, there is no access to the internet, no monitored email, no tablets and no post-secondary education. In this country, I would say there are fewer than two dozen individuals who are actually enrolled to obtain university degrees because the service does not provide any sort of support. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: To clarify, in your testimony, you talked about how less than 8% of the incarcerated Indigenous population participates in Indigenous-specific interventions. You have said that funding is part of the problem, as less than 3% of the annual expenditure on federal corrections in Canada is dedicated to Indigenous-specific initiatives. You have also made a big recommendation in calling on the federal government to devolve responsibility, which you have talked about at length.
I am asking, “How much and in which direction?” Is it throwing good money after bad to try to work within it? Do we still need to tinker inside to try to make it better, even though it is not getting better, or do we need to put our attention largely on the devolution of responsibility to Indigenous people themselves to handle something that our state has not been able to handle very well at all? It is clearly a big failure.
What would you say to that? Where should this emphasis be? Should we continue to try to up the budget and increase programming within to, at least, reduce recidivism? At the same time, should we be doing this or putting more of our eggs in the basket of devolution?
Mr. Zinger: That is the core of the issue. I have been with the Office of the Correctional Investigator in various roles for the last 20 years. What I have seen is tinkering. I have seen the service, in the last 20 years, come up with five different Indigenous strategies. Every time, the person leading that initiative was full of commitment, enthusiasm and energy, and the bottom line is that we have seen very little in terms of actual improvement.
The latest one is even more worrisome to me, this new framework, because it actually throws its hands in the air and says that we are going to continue to see in the future that the trend will be more over-incarceration, and maybe down the road we will see some downward trends. That is part of the issue.
There are other ongoing initiatives. For example, the Department of Justice — this was three years ago now — announced an Indigenous Justice Strategy. I have yet to see anything concrete coming out of that initiative. It is not clear when the actual strategy will be released. It is going to need an action plan. We contacted Justice, we are on one of their working group committees, and we made the pitch that corrections must be part of that overall strategy. We were afraid that Justice would only focus on what Justice knows, which is typically sentencing or things like bail. But it has been three years, and we have not seen anything.
I am also aware there is going to be an election within a year from now, and I do not know what will happen with that. The same thing with the initiative on the Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism. There have been great debates and discussions, but in terms of actually seeing any improvement, it is marginal.
Senator Pate: You have shown us that the evidence is clear that tinkering with the system — saying we’re indigenizing the system, putting in a few healing lodges, a few special circumstance courts and a few programs — makes us all feel better, but it leads to increased numbers of Indigenous people in prison and not to redressing the issue. Not addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry recommendations and those of the TRC, which are all around the system, leads to increases.
We’re already in another round or wave of so-called law and order, which creates more laws and, in my humble opinion, less order. A good example you mentioned is bail reform. Even though all of the evidence showed a different approach was needed, the government already — and we’re not even in the next version of a Conservative government; we saw what happened in the last versions. We saw what happened with the Mulroney and Harper governments, and who knows what will happen if we end up with another Conservative government?
It strikes me that many of us — including, sometimes, your office — have recognized that the only drivers right now seem to be litigation-focused drivers. Once corrections is shown to be violating the law — whether it is the UN declaration, the Charter or its own legislation — only then do we see the so-called political will change. If I have any of that wrong, I certainly want to be corrected.
We did see with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, or YCJA, when the youth legislation was brought in, one change that caused a huge directional shift was the requirement that judges must look to every other system first. It was more acceptable for youth, but they have to look at why we aren’t we dealing with the education, child welfare and other systems. That change alone led to a halving of the number of kids in custody. The numbers that did not go down as much were those of Indigenous kids, but that changed.
Are there any other changes like that which you could see this committee recommending in the federal system that might help impact these changes, in addition to the ones you have already mentioned about quotas and performance measurements for the commissioner and senior managers?
Mr. Zinger: I would be hopeful that the service would demonstrate an openness to truly addressing the recommendations that are already on the table; you mentioned the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. There are 17 recommendations there dealing with corrections, and only one has been acted upon. There are recommendations from my office and from the Senate report on human rights. My mandate is corrections specific, and I think you may want to talk to other witnesses about what you can do and leverage outside corrections. I think there are a lot more opportunities there as well.
As I say, I’m very hopeful that if we can be more pointed in what we require the service to accomplish, with timelines, time frames, targets and quotas, that would move things forward and show some progress.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Zinger. We’re out of time. We’re always on a tight timeline here. Thank you for your testimony today. We really appreciate it. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, certainly feel free to do so and send them to our clerk, Sébastien, within seven days.
I would now like to introduce our next witness. From the O’Chiese First Nation, Bernadine Coleman, Councillor. Welcome, Ms. Coleman.
Our witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session with senators. I will now invite Ms. Coleman to provide opening remarks.
Bernadine Coleman, Councillor, O’Chiese First Nation: Good morning. Thank you, chair and senators. I’m very honoured to be here today. Ahneen. My name is Bernadine Coleman. I am Thunderbird Woman.
[Indigenous language spoken]
I’m councillor for the O’Chiese First Nation. We’re located in central Alberta. I would like to acknowledge that O’Chiese First Nation is located on the traditional territory of the Saulteaux Anishinaabe people. I am pleased and honoured to be a guest on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people here in Ottawa, who are closely related to our nation.
I was first elected to the O’Chiese First Nation Council in 2021. I’m currently serving my first term; it is a four-year term. I have an active role on the board of O’Chiese Energy, a 100% O’Chiese-owned, growth-orientated energy company, with equity interests in an enormous amount of natural gas and liquids production, as well as being the VP of the O’Chiese Business & Investment Centre.
My educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in criminal justice. Prior to being on council, I was the O’Chiese Economic Development Officer, helping to advance my community’s goal of long-term sustainability.
My interests include increasing First Nations negotiation powers, international profiles and my own business expertise. I am busy focusing on expanding my knowledge in the energy sector.
UNDRIP goals include confirming, acknowledging and protecting the constitutional rights of Indigenous people, including our interests within Canada and those of Indigenous people around the world.
I find that the principles of UNDRIP are highly consistent with the concept of energy security. Regarding O’Chiese leadership’s new direction on energy policy, which we started in 2021, a newly elected chief and council for the O’Chiese First Nation directed a new mandate where O’Chiese Energy would drive benefits through its concepts.
During my term, we’ve had a new realization of our value and worth in the overall economy, not only in our province but in the country of Canada and with respect to global economic development as well.
The nation has the right to choose the types of energy sources and associated infrastructure we prefer for our community and to provide input into energy policy broadly.
With respect to culture, the importance of traditional knowledge and practices would be incorporated into the execution and management of energy projects that are harmonious with cultural and spiritual values and beliefs.
For economic development, we strive to have further management and control of the development and true partnerships with the option of equity participation, which would reduce dependence on external sources of income and provide opportunities for economic growth.
We intend to further advance our nation, and other nations such as ours, and provide ourselves as a model of a solution for a path going forward.
With respect to environmental stewardship, the nation would build responsibility for sustainability into energy development that minimizes impacts on the land, water and air.
As you may be aware, some of the objectives within UNDRIP include identifying that action plan and the consultation and cooperation of Indigenous peoples. I wish to thank and acknowledge the Government of Canada for adopting and recognizing UNDRIP. I feel it is absolutely the way forward for us to work and grow together. With respect to the recently released draft action plan of March 2023, and the recent report on that action plan, Canada has worked and consulted with Indigenous people on the development of these documents.
Many regulatory changes were recommended for most federal regulations and policies. As Indigenous people, it is absolutely crucial that further and increased Indigenous participation happens with respect to policies, rules and regulations. I have concerns around the language within that, which mentions minimum standards.
UNDRIP should respect human rights and provide full, genuine equality for Indigenous peoples of Canada. This includes a full, overarching recognition and enforcement of treaties. Currently, many provinces don’t recognize or honour historic treaties.
With respect to our lands, territories and resources, the land of the O’Chiese First Nation sits atop a huge natural resource great basin. The enormous amount of natural gas supplies not only the province and the country but goes out into the world. Between 30% and 40% of our natural gas provides a benefit to us and to the overall global economy.
Regarding the environment, much work needs to happen around policies, rules and regulations, which must be in full recognition of and enforce the historic treaties of Canada. Accountability measures, tools and frameworks must be modernized to today’s standards. Many of the rules, regulations and policies around energy need to be updated going forward.
Many of the policies, rules and regulations, particularly in Alberta — Alberta is huge, as we all know, in oil and gas — need updating so we can meet current demands for a path forward for overall economic development.
Regarding capacity building at the First Nations level, First Nations are stewards of the land. We are here. We can provide solutions within business and community pursuits.
Regarding, transparency and equality when doing business with First Nations, First Nations are on a path to energy and natural resource independence. There’s an enormous value for our natural resources; we, as the O’Chiese First Nation, are taking that into account and pay attention to what flows into and out of those major pipelines. We see, recognize and have a new, sudden realization of our overall value.
O’Chiese provides a large overall economic global benefit, which is derived from the O’Chiese natural gas. We have the power to influence economic outcomes with a path going forward. We must work and do this together.
For First Nations in Canada, we have lands, roads and a whole host of environmental impacts. Again, together, we have the solutions. Having Indigenous participation within policies, rules and regulations is extremely important.
For First Nations to participate in business and the natural resource industry, we must make informed, factual and sound investment decisions. Many nations, unlike ours, do not have the full capacity to engage with or be involved in major projects. The overall economy is impacted by the resources under First Nations’ authorities.
When I talk about capacity and major projects, in Canada’s study through Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, there are planned projects for the decade ahead in Canada. That study says that Canada needs to increase its participation with Indigenous peoples by 200 times to meet the 2030 deadline. We have a lot of work to do together. Indigenous participation is absolutely imperative.
We are in a very exciting and important time and era where we must work with Indigenous people. The government and Indigenous people must sit at the table together and create that path forward. Therefore, Canada has a fiduciary duty to fulfill all of its common law and legislative obligations. First Nations are on a path to greater economic and financial independence.
Specifically and especially problematic is that Canada plans to withdraw laws and policies; for example, with many First Nations, there are now the 10-year contribution agreements. Many agreements that are currently placed upon First Nations in Canada. Canada uses these as a tool to negotiate our long-standing treaties, which, in our opinion, results in diminishing powers under our existing treaties. This is not acceptable.
We can see the economic disparity between First Nations across Canada, which can be directly linked to capacity and resource availability.
I am not here to negotiate treaties. Instead, I’m here to reaffirm our original treaties, and extinguishment will not occur. The objective here is to ensure the permanent existence of our treaties, respecting them, intact as they are, as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.
Hiy Hiy. Meegwetch.
I look forward to further conversation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Coleman. We will now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today. Your position is there’s a lot of hope for the UNDRIP implementation.
I’d like to understand. It seems to me that O’Chiese Energy has a viable operation. How many community members are employed? How many community members are getting the education to have the skill sets to be employed in the industry in your community? Do you feel there’s enough support, collaboration and cooperation between the federal government and your First Nation to get the kind of success you need by using the power of education to ensure that community members can participate in the economy at parity with the rest of Canadian employees?
Ms. Coleman: Great question. Thank you for that. Earlier, I mentioned that I was the economic development officer prior to my term. I’ve also spent over two decades working in a program of Aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, so I’ve done extensive work on that.
As we know, economic development requires a lot of lifting our people. You’re absolutely right; there are challenges and barriers within that.
However, O’Chiese has grown significantly and enormously in the past three years. Having our people work in jobs is an absolute must and a priority. O’Chiese currently has over 13 companies. Within those, we try to implement our people to run those companies or to shadow, where they can take the time to build their capacity through education, employment and training programs.
I’m very happy to say that we have more than doubled our student ratio for our community, which is an absolute must. We have businesses, everything from retail to energy to IT. We are also in gaming. We own the Red Deer Resort & Casino. We participated with over $70 million to have the hotel and casino in the Red Deer area.
We’ve recently built an events centre there as well.
We also have an office in downtown Calgary, which is for O’Chiese Energy. Out of that, we intend to move forward again to create a centre of excellence so that we can share our knowledge and experience with other First Nations across Canada.
Senator Arnot: It sounds like an excellent model for economic reconciliation that others can adopt. It is very impressive. Thanks for advising us about that.
Senator White: Thank you for your presentation here. I’ve been fascinated with O’Chiese First Nation, particularly with how you have a distinct history in that you’ve actually made an amendment to a treaty. That’s not a well-known thing with respect to treaty relations.
Given that UNDRIP, specifically article 37, speaks to nothing diminishing or superseding from treaty rights, can you share with us what this means for your community in the context of the way you deal with treaties and treaty relations? Again, I want to commend you for all the work you do, not only in economic development but also in your emphasis on cultural programs, treaty acknowledgement and awareness. You are certainly a model for First Nations. Thank you for that. I’d like to hear a little more about how you reconcile the treaties and the work of UNDRIP.
Ms. Coleman: Absolutely. Those are great questions. Just to give you all a brief history of the O’Chiese First Nation, as we know, the original treaties of 1876 for Treaty 6 are what our nation comes from. O’Chiese First Nation was one of the last First Nations to sign treaties in Canada. I always say that my ancestors, those who signed treaties, were excellent negotiators of their time. As I said earlier, growing up, I was always fascinated, thinking that putting in the treaties, “as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows” holds a huge significance for the O’Chiese First Nation because that means forever, for all time and all the time of the world’s existence.
Not only do we as Indigenous people at O’Chiese have power and a wealth of knowledge with our culture and traditions, we can also be a model and have great conversations internationally. I have been honoured to sit at international tables with other Indigenous leaders from around the world.
Going back to the power and wealth of our culture within the O’Chiese First Nation, O’Chiese First Nation is in the central part of Alberta. Back when we were placed in O’Chiese, there was little to no farmland. We’ve had a huge journey for survival, and culturally, we are absolutely so wealthy. We implement that in everything about how we live.
When you talk about the treaties, they are very important and we hold those intact for the O’Chiese First Nation, regarding everything from health to education. Not to give my whole strategy of how we hold those, but it’s very important that we model our culture and traditions within everything we do, from business to how we govern ourselves. Those are absolutely implemented in our way of life. We carry that when we do business and in how we carry forward as a nation. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: Councillor, thank you for being here today. I wondered if you could expand upon two things, because, as everybody has commented and those of us who are from Alberta know, you’re a wonderful success story and an inspiration.
I always look at how many community members are on reserve and how many are not. Yours has a very high percentage, compared to most, of people on reserve. They’re staying in the community. Can you talk about why that is?
Also, I’m interested to know about your emphasis on education with young people. Are the young people getting educated and staying? Could you give us a little colour around that?
Ms. Coleman: Thank you for that question. I am very excited to share about our young people and their education. As I commented earlier, I am happy to report that we have doubled the number of people who are going on to further their education. I had the honour to sit with our students two weeks ago, shortly after they started their education in Edmonton. We brought all of our students together. We have students who are doing things in the trades all the way to getting business and commerce degrees in the finance world. I am absolutely, truly excited.
I had this conversation with my students, and I said we need a host of warriors because there are a variety of places that I need to fill in roles. Together, this is how this is lifting my Indigenous economy, and not only my economy, but in all of our businesses; we hire people from other First Nations as well. Overall, it is extremely important.
When you talked about having a high percentage of our people who remain within, we have a huge employment gap that we continue to address. Not only that, it goes back to how the O’Chiese First Nation is culturally. It is home for us. It is how the Indigenous people are within our traditions and our values and how we take care of one another. That plays a huge part in many people choosing to be in the community of O’Chiese. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our special witness today, Ms. Coleman. Thank you for your leadership. Clearly, you have been at this for a long time, and you and your fellow leaders in your community have achieved great success. As my colleagues have said, it is an inspiration. It is also exactly what UNDRIP is supposed to be helping facilitate, both for your community and beyond it. It is important to see what the potential link could be there.
You have spoken about economic leadership and the fact that your community is a very serious energy player. Congratulations.
Ms. Coleman: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: You are also, at the same time, a serious environmental stewardship leader. You have placed a lot of emphasis on the strength of your culture and education for your young people. Those are all cornerstones of what I am hearing you describe as this success, which is what we want to see: more and more success in your terms of what success is.
You also mentioned that energy policies need to be updated. There is an increased need for capacity building. Yes, there is capacity building, but there needs to be more. I am not sure I heard you speak about infrastructure needs, but I might have read about infrastructure needs also.
When you think about the federal relationship with this nation, the nation of Canada, and its relationship with your nation, the O’Chiese First Nation, in those areas of policies needing updating, capacity building, possibly infrastructure and other areas, what do you see as the main areas of focus that need further work?
Ms. Coleman: Yes. Thank you. I wish we had more time, but I will quickly mention the things that are important to the O’Chiese First Nation.
I’ll talk about two examples. First, getting in and out to exploit our natural gas has been one of the challenges we have seen. Today, in 2024, we still have a gravel road that is heavily utilized by industry to get our natural gas. Building infrastructure and pipelines to get the gas out has also seen such enormous activity. It is not acceptable that there is still a gravel road there. I have come to lobby and advocate for the federal government paving that road. It is a small ask considering the enormous amount of natural gas that goes out into the world. It is infrastructure like that. We have looked at some options. That road must be paved. It not only services the industry in getting the natural gas; we have emergency services, the RCMP and ambulances, that use that road, as well as nurses and doctors who come out to the nation. That is one example.
Another example is infrastructure. We have had damage to our infrastructure, so we are looking to improve a bridge that was damaged from a wildfire that cost millions of dollars to the nation to save our homes and the land. And when we build capacity, we have an excellent fire department and emergency management team that protected our lands and people. We had no loss of life and minimal loss of homes in the nation.
We were down to one bridge in and out of the First Nation, which is how that bridge was damaged. Again, there is so much infrastructure. I can talk about physical infrastructure, such as buildings, roads and bridges. Then there is also the infrastructure of pipelines. With that, as we know, there have been opportunities. Maybe a year and a half ago, bringing ownership equity for the Trans Mountain pipeline was talked about. I think that that was silenced. I am not sure whether that will ever come back to life or not.
Also with NGTL very recently, I would like to talk about those as far as UNDRIP and having Indigenous participation done meaningfully and respectfully. First Nations need to be provided more information so that we, as Indigenous people, are able to make sound decisions going forward with that. We also need to be in the room when there are opportunities such as those, along with proponents, rather than having proponents come with an already financed structural deal. We need participation in what that structure looks like and further participation from not only my nation but many nations across Canada. I think that would set an excellent path forward together.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you for joining us. I wish to pick up on something Senator Tannas raised.
In addition, on education, I would be interested in the percentage of folks who have achieved trades training, post-secondary education, as well as Grade 12. Also, I’d like to know what addiction levels, homelessness and criminalization are like in your community. I know that when Mr. Justice Causey in 1991, published in 1992, looked at the incarceration rates in Alberta, he found that by the age of 30, 90% of Indigenous men, for instance, had a criminal record. In many instances, when we see the kinds of infrastructure you have, we often see lower rates. I am curious about what your rates are and what you attribute those to.
Ms. Coleman: Yes. Thank you for those questions, Senator Pate. I am not here equipped with statistics in front of me right now, but you are absolutely correct.
I am very pleased that you brought up the issues around addictions, incarceration, crime and the RCMP. The growth that we have had within the O’Chiese First Nation has brought its challenges with respect to crime and incarceration rates. From that, we have absolutely seen the right to protection for RCMP as well. I sent a strong letter to the RCMP recently saying that it is unacceptable that they are not currently meeting the needs the nation as far as providing for Community Tripartite Agreement, or CTA, members. In our nation, we share a number of four in total. Two CTAs are for my nation, and two are for the neighbouring nation of Sunchild First Nation. Those RCMP members are not always available to us. That is a concern that I have brought to the RCMP.
As I also know and can speak on, for the area where we are policed with RCMP, we have a high rate of crime and a high rate of different areas within that. I do have those statistics readily available because I have been continuing conversations with the RCMP. That is a very important issue and topic that needs addressing.
From all of those comes addiction. There are an increasing number of issues around addiction, not only within the O’Chiese First Nation. Many First Nations across Canada are dealing with a more dangerous and higher level — I always call it a monster — of addiction that has taken over many people, and not only Indigenous people. It is very alive and well in municipalities and cities across Canada. I think that is an overall issue that we must look at jointly. I wish to say this because it is very important: Addressing addictions issues used to be going to rehab for maybe a measly 30 days. That was your rehab. Those rehabs would mainly address things like drugs and alcohol. The monster of addictions we are addressing now is with respect to a more harmful drug that has taken over communities across Canada — again, not only within First Nations but also municipalities and cities. Addressing that type of need requires a longer-term rehab. You cannot fix it in 30 days or with a little detox. That is hugely important.
Addressing addictions as a root problem, if we can start there, is hugely important for the O’Chiese First Nation. In my time in leadership here, I have implemented some programs that I thought would work. I have increasingly tried to support programs that are working. We have adopted a day program that is working within our community. Again, all credit goes to those people and how they save their lives. Once they see one person able to address their addictions, others say, “I can do that as well. How did you do that? What worked for you?”
I have always advocated for a recovery facility that addresses exactly what we are doing, but to no avail. I have not been successful in providing that actual facility to implement the program and what works for us, though we are extremely successful regarding the program and what is working for us.
A recommendation that I would like to put forth is that whatever these recovery facilities look like, they need to be more long-term and have doctors and nurses who can help these people ease off their addictions and, overall, implement a program that wraps around their service so that when they go in, they address the physical part of their addiction. As we talked about earlier, we also need to address what they can do now — we need to house them and have employment for them. I am also a huge advocate for the safety of not only those who are homeless but families and children as well. So much work is going on around child welfare right now. That is hugely important and great to see.
As I said, there is so much knowledge that we can share in the things we do. The O’Chiese First Nation has a ton of work to do on child welfare. We need to bring our children home and have greater authority and autonomy to do so. When we talk about safety, I always say that it is not okay that the population of the O’Chiese First Nation, over 1,500 people, has over 100 of our children out in a system where there is nothing implemented and we cannot bring them home yet. That is hugely important. Every day, when I start my day and we say prayers, I think about those children. There are still absolutely horrific stories that are coming to my attention. There is a lot of work to be done with UNDRIP and in many areas.
I want to touch on crime and incarceration rates as well. As we all know, those stats are very high. I have seen some instances where within my community where the RCMP would say, “You know, it is not everyone in your community; your community is great.” We all have those. It is probably not even 10% of our people who are causing the havoc, but it is not only that. Again, when we talk about addressing addictions, there is also addressing the selling of drugs as well. I know our community has made and implemented some advancements in how we can address that. I am not here to say that I am ever going to give a solution to that. That is its own thing that all of us, together, must address.
Going back to that, it does play a huge part in the stats on crime and incarceration. Within Alberta, it used to be the Maskwacis that had the most crime stats. The growth of the economy and wealth that has come to a nation has brought an increasing amount of crime and addictions as well.
I am here to advocate for implementing things for our areas, especially going forward. The area we need to look at is personal safety. Is that going to be something that we are looking at possibly doing for more security and policing within the RCMP? Or maybe it is looking at what other First Nations have done around their own First Nations policing.
As you can see, it is very exhausting for me. When you can come to work and focus on one thing — as Indigenous leaders, we are focusing on any of 20 issues on a daily basis. Keeping those moving forward, as you can see how much work the O’Chiese First Nation has done, we are looking at many things, everything from the crime, addiction, health, incarceration, affordable housing. We also own a large number of real estate properties in Edmonton as well so many of our students can transition into those homes.
We are trying to create and be the model for what all First Nations need, including economic development and all the social aspects of that. In that context, it requires a huge amount of work.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Coleman, for your testimony today. We appreciate you being here.
The time for this panel is now complete. That brings us to the end of our meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)