THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 24, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: 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 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 Nation and is now home to many other First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Peoples from across Turtle Island.
I am Mi’kmaw Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am the chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I will now ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their names and province or territory.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
Senator Hartling: Good morning. Senator Nancy Hartling from the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people in New Brunswick.
Senator McNair: Good morning. John McNair, New Brunswick, also from the unceded lands of the Mi’kmaq people.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, everyone. David Arnot, from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator Audette: [Innu-aimun spoken] Michèle Audette, Innu from Quebec.
Senator White: Kwe. Judy White from Ktaqmkuk, better known as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood from British Columbia, originally from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Coyle: Good morning. I am Mary Coyle, from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone.
Before we begin the meeting, I want to make a brief announcement.
Following a request by the Indigenous Senators Working Group, a new option for the Senate public website, as well as the broadcast display banner for committee meetings and chamber sittings for senators, has been added. Specifically, all senators, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, now have the option to acknowledge a traditional territory next to their home province or territory, which is a sign of recognition and respect for the special relationship of Indigenous peoples with the land. We can also add Latin alphabet-compatible Indigenous languages, including the equivalent for “the Honourable.” For example, in mine, you will now see “Epekwitk, Mi’kma’ki” next to Prince Edward Island. You will also see “Kepmite’Imut” next to my official title. This is a small but important step towards strengthening our institutional commitment to inclusivity and reconciliation. I am hopeful that more senators will use this option in the coming months. The changes were approved by the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Thank you to the Information Services Directorate and the Communications, Broadcasting and Publications Directorate for making these changes possible.
Today, we are continuing our study into the effectiveness of the Canadian human rights framework in the promotion and protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples. Specifically, we are considering whether existing mechanisms could be improved or whether new ones are required, including Indigenous-specific mechanisms.
I would now like to introduce our first witness this morning, Ms. Jennifer Moore Rattray, former Ministerial Special Representative to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations —Call for Justice 1.7. Thank you for joining us and welcome back, Ms. Moore Rattray. As you will certainly recall, Ms. Moore Rattray appeared before this committee in April 2023. As Ministerial Special Representative to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, she was tasked with providing recommendations through engagement with survivors, family members, partners and organizations on the implementation of Call for Justice 1.7 and the creation of a national Indigenous human rights ombudsperson. The committee decided to welcome her back to give us an overview of the recommendations of the Call for Justice 1.7 Final Report that was published last June.
Our witness will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question and answer session with the senators. I will now invite Ms. Moore Rattray to give her opening remarks.
Jennifer Moore Rattray, Former Ministerial Special Representative to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations —Call for Justice 1.7, as an individual: Tansi, aniin, bonjour and good morning.
[Cree spoken]
I am a proud member of Peepeekisis Cree Nation, although my mother’s family is originally from Bunibonibee, also known as Oxford House, Norway House and Fisher River Cree Nations in what is now Manitoba. I have the privilege of living in Winnipeg on Treaty 1 territory, which is also the home of the Red River Métis.
I want to acknowledge the ancestors, this beautiful day and that I am grateful to be a visitor on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
I want to thank you for the invitation to meet with you again and for your commitment to using your collective voice to ending the national epidemic of violence against Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender diverse people.
When we first met, I was beginning my appointment as Ministerial Special Representative. I was asked to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations on the implementation of Call for Justice 1.7 from the National Inquiry’s Final Report, which speaks to the establishment of a national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson. It was an honour to do this work.
Meetings and engagements began in April of 2023, and over the next nine months, I was fortunate to meet with more than 600 people who took the time to speak to me, some on multiple occasions, and in all, more than 125 different organizations and governments, including national and regional Indigenous organizations, as well as a number of government accountability entities, federal government departments, and provincial and territorial MMIWG2S+ lead departments.
Initial meetings and engagements were followed by validation sessions — very important — with First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments and organizations to evolve the co-developed recommendations. All insights in the report come from the guidance and advice of families and survivors, and First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and citizens who shared their valuable time, their truths and their expectation that there will be accountability and change.
A final report was submitted earlier this year, and it contains a number of recommendations including that the ombuds office be national as well as regional in scope with an approach that respects First Nations, Inuit and Métis distinctions; the importance of establishing a strong foundation, including words on jurisdiction and reporting; a process to select the ombudspersons; a mandate, responsibilities, powers and independence; governance and resourcing; hiring and staffing; transparency and reporting; phasing for success, which is so critical; and an implementation plan, including a draft legislative framework that was submitted to expedite the process.
As the data and engagements made clear, a new Indigenous-specific human rights institution is required to advance the fulfillment of the rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and specifically of Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, wherever they reside and regardless of status.
The creation of a new accountability mechanism in the form of Indigenous and human rights ombudspersons is an opportunity to begin to address inequities in government programs and services that lead to Indigenous and human rights violations and more.
One example, from hundreds, is the difference in travel rates between the Non-Insured Heath Benefit program run by Indigenous Services Canada and the rates paid by other federal government departments, for example, Veterans Affairs Canada. How can that difference be justified? Another example is the difference in service delivery standards that has existed for years. It takes 10 days to get a passport, but months to renew or replace a secure certificate of Indian status, and it is not unusual to wait nine months or more for a new status card. A status card provides access to Non-Insured Health Benefits among other benefits, and that is a treaty right, albeit a significantly limited version of what our ancestors negotiated.
Accountability, substantive equality, systemic change and restorative justice are principles that can be embedded in the Indigenous-led, culturally safe and trauma-informed work of the ombudspersons and their offices. Accountability is important. I hope we would all agree with that.
Provinces and most territories have overarching ombuds offices where citizens can bring their concerns about any PT program, service or department. Many cities and large institutions such as universities and hospitals also have broad ombuds offices where general issues and concerns can be brought forward, but not the federal government, the largest order of government in Canada and the one with the most direct responsibility for Indigenous peoples.
We have before us an opportunity that can begin to chart a new path for Canada, strengthened by a foundation of Indigenous and human rights, with fairness and substantive equality for all.
My report concludes with a reminder expressed by an engagement participant about the fragile nature of trust, and the expectations around Call for Justice 1.7, “Not great faith, but great hope.” Let’s honour that hope, and work to bring Call for Justice 1.7 to life.
As a former provincial Assistant Deputy Minister, I know the creation of a new office will not be technically easy, but it can be achieved if there is the will to do so. Really, it is a small and manageable piece of what needs to be done, and it will have profound positive outcomes.
Ekosani, chi-migwetch, thank you and merci. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Moore Rattray. We’ll now move on to questions from senators. I will go to my deputy chair, Senator Arnot, for the first question.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much, Ms. Moore Rattray, and thank for your incredibly well-crafted report. I really appreciate the sweeping capacity of the recommendations in your report, which creates an unprecedented response to the discrimination, inequity and equality which has been experienced by Indigenous people in Canada. You have touched on one of the issues, and I think there is a lot of hope here. That’s for sure.
How would you advise a new ombudsperson to negotiate with the provinces and the territories to ensure that this model has success? As you say, 1.7 has brought the light. I’m just wondering what you say about that, given the fact that it appears that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the human rights commissions in the provinces and territories have really failed in the goal they had. How do you see that? That seems to me to be a challenge, and you’ve talked about it. What kind of advice would you be giving the ombudsperson in this new model about this issue?
Ms. Moore Rattray: Thank you very much for your excellent question. I think that’s really one of the critical pieces. There are soft things that can be done and also hard things that can be done.
In terms of soft skills, it’s all about relationships — it always is — having respectful relationships with your colleagues. If you are a national Indigenous ombudsperson or one of the 13 regional Indigenous ombudspersons, it’s always about having that respectful relationship.
It is also somewhat clear when something is within the area of federal jurisdiction and an issue with a federal program or service or whether it is within the purview of a province or territory. I think that there is a pretty natural difference between the areas of responsibility.
With that being said, just as Auditors General offices nationally, provincially and territorially will have relationships and at times do joint investigations, that may well be the case. But I really think it is about always having respectful, clear conversations and understanding what is within the ombudsperson’s purview versus what is within the purview of a provincial or territorial ombudsperson.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.
Ms. Moore Rattray: Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the good work that you are doing. I very much appreciate it.
To build on Senator Arnot’s question, in the proposed model, you recommend that provincial and territorial governments both enact legislation so that the existing ombudsman and human rights commissioners be impacted in a way that is consistent. What happens if a province or territory does not enact legislation to allow them to collaborate in that way? An easy way to put this question is, do you see this posing any jurisdictional conflicts?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I was guided and advised by the many, much wiser folks than me who shared their expertise on this journey to avoid jurisdictional muddying wherever possible. As Canadians, we’re all aware when that occurs, and we don’t want more of that.
The way the model was set up is if a province or territory did not wish to pass legislation to provide an easy way for the two to work together, it can still work. That was really critical and really important. Entirely within the purview of the federal government, the ombudspersons can be created and can exist both nationally and regionally because they would all be working within areas of federal jurisdiction. I would imagine there will be a variety of ways that a regional ombudsperson in a province or territory will work with their provincial and territorial counterpart at the provincial level. Ideally, there would be the ability to work very closely together, but if that were not the case, there would still be those respectful relationships. It is better with some joint legislation or with some legislation, but it doesn’t have to occur. It can be done without.
Senator White: Thank you for that.
I’m thinking about a remote community like where I would live. What mechanisms would there be or how would we deal with that to ensure equitable access?
Ms. Moore Rattray: That is such a good question, and that was raised over and over again, whether it was a virtual or in‑person visit that I attended across the country, and that was really one of the key pieces. Not everybody lives in a large urban centre, nor should they, nor do they want to. One of the pieces that I talk about in here is the requirement for staff in the regional offices to have a mobile unit, basically, that would travel consistently throughout a province or territory to educate about rights, Indigenous and human rights, but also to be able to triage, have those conversations and support people. That is really important. In particular, Indigenous women in rural and remote parts of Canada insisted that be in here in writing, so it is.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I sincerely appreciate your presentation.
[English]
I want to say thank you, Jennifer, for the work you did. Thank you to the senators when they agreed that they should do a study on the Call for Justice on MMIWG. Thank you to the minister on moving this and some colleagues that are in the room.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. As you know, Ms. Moore Rattray, for some nations in Canada, English and French are second languages — colonial languages that were imposed on them.
I’d like to know whether you’ve considered developing federal legislation to ensure that, at a minimum, people are able to receive services in both official languages and, ideally of course, indigenous languages. In Quebec, specifically, it’s important to make sure that the person providing the service is bilingual or trilingual, as the case may be.
Can you assure us that people whose first or second language isn’t English will be able to formally have their needs met at the federal level?
Next, I’d like to know when you submitted your report.
We didn’t hear much about that important news. It was posted online, but I’d like to understand why such an important event went unnoticed. That’s just my opinion.
Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Moore Rattray: Those are two very good questions.
In terms of the languages, something that was repeatedly expressed wherever I went is the need to have service available in our languages. There are so many of our people who, in particular in rural and remote areas, don’t speak English or French. That was really one of the reasons people said we really need to have regional offices as well, and in those regional offices, we need to have individuals who speak our languages so that people can receive service in the language they want, need and require. That was really important. It took a little bit to have various translations done of the report, but I really wanted that to occur, and the department was wonderful in locating some excellent-quality translators and being able to make that happen. I was really thankful and grateful for that. Languages are so important.
The report was initially submitted in January but with the understanding that, with the second national roundtable coming up at I believe the end of February, there might be additional feedback at that point. Regarding additional feedback, there were two additional points that were received. One was a really excellent point by a youth who said, “You speak about elders and knowledge keepers. We need to ensure youth have a more prominent role.” Of course, there are so many great ideas, let’s make sure — that piece was in there, but it wasn’t amplified enough, so I was able to amplify that piece. Another small but important piece was also brought to my attention. Then, that was done, and then it was the translation into French because, sadly, I am fairly unilingual. So we translated it into French and into the other languages afterward. Thank you.
Senator Audette: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: It is great to be back with everybody this fall. I am really thankful you are leading us off in this very important matter. You know how important it is to all of us, and we sincerely appreciate your work. I’m just hanging onto these Calls for Justice. We just have to keep at this. I feel like we are making some progress. I apologize that I have not yet read the report, but I have a sense of what is in it.
For our purposes, it would be good to know two things. First, with the creation of the ombudsperson with all the description you have provided to us and the tribunal, where do you see the level of enforcement powers? We know that the Call to Justice talked about two things: It would have the authority to receive complaints and, I would assume, deal with those complaints. What does it mean to deal with those complaints and to what level? What other levels of cooperation are going to be needed for that power of enforcement, if you like, for outcomes? The second part of it is to really thoroughly evaluate government services. It is really the fairness factor, about which you have raised examples here. What are the enforcement powers on both of those things, and then what do you anticipate the balance being between both of those matters, the responsive versus the proactive? How will that be undertaken?
Ms. Moore Rattray: Those are excellent questions. I want to make sure I answer all of them.
Senator Coyle: Yes, I’m sorry; it is a lot.
Ms. Moore Rattray: No, thank you so much. They are very thoughtful questions.
In terms of the issue of responsive versus proactive, every ombudsperson’s office I spoke to across the country and every other accountability entity talked about just that: the need for additional resources to be able to make sure they could be proactive as well as reactive. Sometimes, various accountability entities said that when an issue continues to come up repeatedly in a variety of parts of the country, as an example, or a variety of ways within a province or territory, that is when it was understood to be a broader issue. At that point, there would be a deeper investigation.
It really all comes down to resources, and in some cases, ombudspersons’ offices across the country and other accountability entities are resourced well enough to be able to be somewhat proactive, but in other cases, it is just keeping up with demand. I think that’s why, sometimes across the country, there will be wait times of a year and sometimes up to two years when it comes to human rights commissions being able to respond and indicate whether a matter is even going to be received or not. That really gets to those long wait times.
In here, in some of the details, was the need to be resourced properly so that people are not having another frustrating experience. I would imagine — which is why I suggested a phased approach — that there will be a big influx at the beginning, because we’re talking about a number of issues that have been of concern to people for a long time. Being able to manage those expectations and being able to ramp up in a good and proper way is really important.
In terms of enforcement, in the section of the recommendations that is ombudsperson’s responsibilities, powers and independence, it talks about the powers being legislated, including own-motion powers with investigative powers. That is so important.
To your point about enforcement, the ombudspersons must have strong enforcement powers to compel witnesses and documents or records, including making it an offence to obstruct, with penalties for non-compliance. The ombudspersons must have public reporting powers should recommendations not be acted upon. Once the tribunal is established — everywhere I went, everyone said, “Okay, this is part one, right? When does part two start?” People have read their Calls for Justice and know the tribunal is part two of Call for Justice 1.7. So once the tribunal is established, it may, at their discretion, seek enforcement through the tribunal.
Another quick piece I learned in my conversations with ombudspersons’ offices across Canada is that, almost 50% of the time, things can be resolved informally very quickly within 30, 45 or 90 days because people might just not know where to go or a department might need a bit of extra emphasis or push in order to be able to work something out. We would hope that would be the case here and that it would only be those matters that aren’t able to be resolved in a timely manner by the ombudspersons that would then potentially go to the tribunal stage, if appropriate.
The last quick point I’ll make is that I really am hopeful that we can continue to do the work on all 231 Calls for Justice, but the CBC did a deep dive into this last year and found that only 2 of the 231 Calls for Justice have been completed or accomplished and that more than 50% have not even been started. So there is some work to do. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. Nice to see you again.
You tiptoed around this in your opening comments, but my question is this: Can Canada’s existing federal and provincial human rights tribunals be used at all as models, templates or working documents to move this along? I am most interested in you giving examples or speaking to why not as opposed to — but if there is an opportunity, I’m just curious if there is any opportunity there.
Ms. Moore Rattray: I want to make sure I understand your question correctly. Can existing provincial and territorial human rights commissions be used to do this work instead of or as complementary to —
Senator Sorensen: I guess as complementary to or as a starting point or a working document.
Ms. Moore Rattray: I would always advocate for — and I think the people I spoke with would also advocate for — more places to go to have human rights matters addressed. There are a lot of reasons why Indigenous, First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are finding some of those other mechanisms frustrating, and potentially other Canadians as well, in terms of wait times. There are amazing people working at those ombuds offices and other accountability entities across Canada, but I think that often resourcing is a real challenge. With resourcing, you get these big wait times.
If you are in a rural or remote community and trying to make a call or reach somebody or talk to somebody, you get into that never-never land of calling and being on hold forever. I know that when our folks call the status card offices here to get an update about their status card, they can wait on hold for three to four hours. If you are in a community, if you have a cellphone, if you are paying for cell minutes, that’s just impossible.
To get back to the real point of your question, I think they would continue to be complementary, but I think there are so many pieces in here about the specific way that this office would work and how it would work, how it would treat people when they come in, open evenings, open weekends — all of the human things that we would all want or need are in how this office would operate. I think there is a need for both.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I have a question for you, Ms. Moore Rattray.
As a side note in response to the status cards, I’ve been waiting myself for well over six months for a replacement card. I lost my card when I was in Germany, and I still haven’t gotten one yet after having put in an application in six months ago. There is certainly room for improvements, for sure.
Further to your report, could you comment on how the proposed national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson would work with existing Parliament agents with concurrent jurisdictions? What does the report recommend to ensure this body is adequately and permanently funded?
Ms. Moore Rattray: Those are two really good questions.
How would they work together? There is overlap currently within federal and provincial accountability entities, so there is minimal overlap with what I think is being proposed here. There would be respectful relationships.
I’ll give you an example. There are very few, very limited-in-scope federal ombuds offices. One is the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. You can only go there if you’ve been a victim of crime in a very specific space. There is a veteran’s ombudsperson, but you can only go there if you’re a veteran. So it would be a matter of choice. That’s one of the recommendations here. That’s one of the things that people have said across the country. They don’t want to be told where to go. If I were a veteran, for example, I could go to the veteran’s ombudsperson if it had to do with Veterans Affairs Canada. If it weren’t resolved, I could go to the national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, or I could start with the national Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson and then go to the veteran’s ombudsperson if needed. There are rare occasions where there might be overlap, and in that case, it really would be a choice. The experts within the ombuds office, who would be doing the intake and sitting and talking through the issue, would absolutely be advising the individuals whether there were other places that might be more suited for them to go initially. This occurs every day across Canada when it comes to provincial and federal jurisdiction, for example. I can go to a hospital ombudsperson in my territory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, or I can go to the provincial ombudsperson. There are already small pieces of overlap, but the choice model, I think, is really important.
The Chair: To the funding, how would you ensure adequate and permanent funding?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I spoke quite deliberately to the funding piece in here because I think that’s so important. In really hearing from the ombuds offices across the country, some of them are really struggling to deliver on their mandates in a timely fashion because of their funding. I have some strong language in here around funding and how that would be handled, and that it would be done independently, because, of course, what none of us would want as Canadians would be for an office to have its budget reduced if it were bringing up issues that might make the government uncomfortable.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here and for all of your work.
I had two questions. One is probably a dumb one, but I’m going to ask it anyway. I have asked it before. Do you have any idea why it is that a status card needs to be renewed? I don’t renew my birth certificate or my social insurance card. I don’t understand why the need for renewal to begin with. A passport is a privilege, but a status card is not a privilege, it’s a right. Have you, in your travels, discovered any real rational reason why that needs to occur?
Ms. Moore Rattray: That is a very good question. I have heard that a fair bit in my travels. People have made a sort of half joke — but half not — about “I’m not an Indian anymore because my card expired,” so to speak.
It’s a very good point. Practically speaking, when it’s used as photo ID is the reason to have the photo part of it expire because, of course, you could have your two-year-old baby picture on your status card and, of course, you’re going to look a lot different when you’re 58, like I am. It’s when it’s used as photo ID that there really is the need to have the card updated, but you’re absolutely right. The status itself should remain forever and in perpetuity and just the photo portion should be updated. A very good point.
Senator Tannas: You tabled the report with the minister early this year. Was it January or February? January. It needs legislation. Quite rightly, you said, “co-development.” Is any of that going on right now, to your knowledge?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I am unaware of that. I did provide a draft legislative framework for consideration as a starting point. That was drafted by First Nations and Métis lawyers and reviewed by a 30-years retired federal legislative drafter, so I believe the quality is quite good. It was meant to be a starting point, and, of course, the co-development would then really kick in. Sometimes with legislation, it’s helpful to have something for people to react to and to evolve.
Senator Tannas: This goes to the “faith and hope” thing. It’s unlikely this is going to appear on the legislative agenda of this particular government. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I live in hope.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much.
Senator Hartling: It’s nice to be back. Thank you, Ms. Moore Rattray, for being here. It’s a great way to start our sessions, to have you come. I believe in hope too, so it’s nice to hear how things are moving forward.
It sounds like some deep listening happened during this process. That’s important, because sometimes it’s lip service and surveys, but it sounds like you and your team did a lot of deep listening. I really appreciate that.
We have talked a lot here about youth, of course, but I’m thinking about elders, the knowledge they have and how they can impact in the long term. One of the questions was to give us more details about how those 14 governance councils, elder knowledge keepers and councils would actually work, their governance and advisory model. Can you tell us more about that? It is important not to just say, yes, we will have the elders there. How do they impact the process and work on that governance model?
Ms. Moore Rattray: Absolutely. Thank you so much for that very good question.
In terms of the team, it was me, so I really heard every single person. It wasn’t individuals who worked with me who were going out and listening and bringing this forward; it was myself working part-time through last year with a half-time assistant. I was forever grateful for her coordination of the meetings and excellent note-taking, just for the record.
There are two governance entities. One would be the selection committees, which are really critical because they have to have representation of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, people living in cities and people living in rural and remote areas. That’s a really important point.
The elders and knowledge keepers councils are really meant to be a place where the ombudspersons can go. There are the four national Indigenous and human rights ombudspersons and then one for each province and territory. There are regional elders and knowledge keepers councils as well as a national elders and knowledge keepers council. They would be a place where an ombudsperson can go to get advice and guidance. We don’t all know everything. None of us knows everything. It’s great to have somebody you can bounce something off of or be reminded if you’re starting to need some support with this really hard work.
Elders and knowledge keepers have always been really critical people in our world and our societies. Making sure there is a formal place for them within the structure is one way that we can really make this non-Indigenous structure — this Swedish structure from 200 years ago — work and really walk in both worlds and hold the federal government accountable, along with its programs and services, and also do things differently for Indigenous peoples.
I hope I have answered your question. Thank you.
Senator Hartling: Thank you. If there is anything our committee can do to move things forward — I’m speaking for everybody, but I think we’re all in agreement that we would certainly support that. Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you so much for your testimony and for undertaking this very important work.
In your testimony earlier, I believe you stressed accountability and to really have that as a mechanism throughout all of this process. I think you mention it twice. I think Senator Tannas mentioned it earlier, as well as Senator Hartling, with respect to — you said “not great faith, but hope.”
Through your journey of roughly about 600 people, but I’m sure there is more, 125 First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments, you have heard a lot. I would imagine that through all of it, when you utilize those words, “not great faith, but hope” — I’m wondering if you could share a bit more on that perspective. As mentioned, there is some deep listening there involved.
I have a second question, but I’ll reserve that until after you answer this one. Thanks.
Ms. Moore Rattray: Thank you very much for that great question.
It was a real act of trust for people to take time out of their incredibly busy lives and days. We all know the statistics. We all know the crises that exist in many of our communities and nations. So for people to take two or two and a half hours out of their day to meet and talk was a real responsibility.
We would start the meeting, and they would be very clear: “I am meeting with you because I trust that you will be responsible with what I am sharing with you. I am not serving members of my community right now so I can be here with you and tell you what is important, because that’s how important this is to me. So you need to carry this forward and do everything you can to make people in that big city” — that they might never have been to — Ottawa and Gatineau — the National Capital Region — “and those very important people — you need, as your personal responsibility, to bring that forward to them and make sure they hear you and make sure this moves forward, because it’s that critical.”
That is really the imperative. That is what is in my mind — the urgency of this. We are really talking about lives here. We are talking about the impacts when services and programs aren’t delivered. When there are human rights violations, sometimes people die. Those things were always in my mind. Those were impressed upon me meeting after meeting after meeting. I hope that adds a little bit of added impetus for us all.
Senator Prosper: It certainly does. Thank you for sharing that.
Second, we’re talking about enabling legislation. You mentioned earlier a draft legislative framework to provide some basis for other parties to follow up and pick up on. That’s quite a diligent exercise. But getting back to the emphasis on accountability, you mentioned there is a need for “own-motion powers,” which I believe suggests things that have a fair bit of power and substance, and its connection to a tribunal that is able to act upon recommendations or findings. Do you find that a tribunal is a necessary component in order for accountability to be actually realized? Thank you.
Ms. Moore Rattray: Thank you.
As some elders and knowledge keepers describe it, the tribunal is the teeth. The ombuds offices can be the smile, but if there is not actually change being made where it is required, the tribunals are the teeth. Tribunals can award damages, as an example, and finances can be a part of that. Of course, governments tend to pay attention when there are dollars attached. So I think a tribunal is really important.
As to what that looks like, the work has not yet been done in that area. However, I don’t think we should wait for a tribunal, or the development of a tribunal, before we launch ombuds offices in the National Capital Region and the regional ones across Canada. That’s really important, because so much good can come from these offices and so much positive change can happen.
It is better with both, absolutely. I think that was the reason why Call for Justice 1.7 was written and constructed as beautifully as it was. Again, Call for Justice 1.7 and all of the Calls for Justice came from the truths of family members and survivors — thousands of them across our country. That’s what they said they wanted and needed, so we need to try and honour that.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: It’s good to be back with everybody. It has been awhile.
I was really impressed as I was reading through some of the material about the magnitude of the mandate. We have heard from other groups about how much work there is and how great the demand is. I also thought about — and you have spoken about it this morning — partnerships with other human rights groups in the country. This is following on from some of the previous questions.
I have two questions. First, I would really like to understand how you see those relationships unfolding. Of course, the first is with other human rights groups in the provinces, territories and federally. We have a new national reconciliation council coming on board. How do you see yourselves working together? There will be overlaps, and I just don’t want to see this group get sunk by the magnitude of the work when there are a number of partnerships out there that might be useful to you. I offer that and ask you to expand on that.
I have a second question. Do you want me to ask that now?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I’ll answer this one first, if I can, because it’s a very complex question you’ve asked — a really good question, but a complex one.
Senator Greenwood: Yes.
Ms. Moore Rattray: I’ll go back to what I said earlier. It’s around relationships. Ombuds offices, whether they are the few and very limited-in-scope federal ombuds offices, they already meet, connect and work together. I think there are about five or six of them. The same thing happens across the country with the provincial and territorial ombuds offices. There is a group — in fact, they were incredibly helpful with this process — and they meet and they talk, and within the provinces and territories, of course, similar organizations work together, talk and connect. I think, informally, that will absolutely happen.
If the need were being met now with the existing mechanisms, I don’t think we would have the statistics that we have. I don’t think we would have an 11-year and growing gap in life expectancy in my territory between First Nations and all others or an 18.5-year gap in life expectancy in the Province of Alberta between First Nations and all others. There are education gaps, employment gaps, et cetera, as we all know — over incarceration, under police, over policing, depending on the issue. I think if things were working well — but they are not. For that reason, having these offices is so important.
The intake individuals at the national office and at the regional offices will be able to support people if there is a better place for them to go. If somebody comes in and it’s a matter within provincial jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction, there will be a warm handoff to caring individuals within provincial and territorial ombuds offices. There actually isn’t much duplication, and I think folks will work together.
You have asked about human rights commissions. It can take up to a year, or sometimes more, to get back to people who come forward with a complaint. If you have an urgent issue, you need it resolved in a shorter fashion than a year or two. I think there is absolutely a place for commissions. They are really important for the larger, broader issues, but if you’re able to resolve something within 30 days, 45 days or 90 days, why wouldn’t we want to do that? If something then needs to escalate or move at some point to a human rights commission, of course, that would be within an individual’s choice to be able to do so.
I hope I answered your question.
Senator Greenwood: Yes, you have. I just worry about the magnitude of what the office is. I wouldn’t want to see them get overwhelmed by issues.
The second question I have is around co-development. You have been talking about a phased-in approach around co‑developed legislation, the introduction of a national ombudsperson and then, six months later, the appointment of provincial-territorial ombudspersons. Do you think that timeline is still realistic?
Ms. Moore Rattray: I think maybe we’re a little behind, but smart people with good energy and effort can catch up. I did have a suggested implementation timeline. We might have blown past it a little bit, but legislation can still be introduced, people can still be hired, offices can still be opened, but we might be talking about maybe six months off of my implementation plan. But that’s okay. Things evolve. I think it’s just important that it happens and that we all use our voices if we believe this is important. I believe it’s very foundational to actually changing the trajectory of Indigenous peoples in Canada. If we’re happy with the status quo, then we don’t need to do it. If we are not happy with the status quo, if we recognize that there is a problem, an issue and a crisis, quite frankly, then we need to do this. Time is of the essence, and this needs to happen.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Moore Rattray, I’ll be asking the last question here. Under the model of parliament, the Parliament of Canada would play a role in appointing the national and regional ombudspersons. Why was this model suggested?
Ms. Moore Rattray: The model that was suggested was that the individuals would be selected by Indigenous peoples. This is an entity by Indigenous peoples for Indigenous peoples, but for the four national Indigenous and human rights ombudspersons, four names would be brought forward, and the Government of Canada would approve those four names. It’s not the Government of Canada selecting; it’s Indigenous peoples saying, “These are the four people we select.” It’s the same thing for the 13 regional Indigenous and human rights ombudspersons. As it is an entity of the Government of Canada, formal approval is required, but there wouldn’t be a choice. It would be that these are the four that we are bringing forward, or in the case of the regions, these are the 13 that we are bringing forward.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
We have four minutes if anyone has a really quick question. Not seeing any hands raised, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank our witness for joining us today. If you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk, Sébastien, within seven days.
I would now like to introduce our next witnesses. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we have Valerie Gideon, Deputy Minister, and Krista Apse, Director General, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Secretariat. Welcome to you both.
Ms. Gideon will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by question and answer session with the senators. I will now invite Ms. Gideon to give her opening remarks.
Valerie Gideon, Deputy Minister, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Kwe kwe, Ullukkut, Tansi. Hello.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
Mr. Chair, honourable committee members, thank you for this opportunity. It’s nice to be with you again.
I would like to begin by thanking the former Ministerial Special Representative for her work on this issue. Ms. Moore Rattray’s report is compelling and comprehensive. She emphasizes the need for action and accountability as it pertains to the implementation of Call for Justice 1.7, specifically the creation of an Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson.
We must recognize that establishing a new accountability mechanism may also require additional policy, as well as legislative and funding authorities. This is being fully assessed now while we continue conversations with partners on their perspectives.
I would like to bring the members of this committee up to date on the work done by the government, in collaboration with Indigenous partners, to implement programs and create supports that will end violence against Indigenous women, girls, two‑spirit and gender-diverse people.
[Translation]
On June 3 of each year since 2021, the government publishes an annual update on the work it has completed to advance its commitments made in the Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People.
This year’s report shows that, in working alongside Indigenous partners, we’ve made progress on the national action plan, and the 231 Calls for Justice issued by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, to help end this crisis. It specifically shows that targeted investments have been made that have helped advance approximately three quarters of the Calls for Justice to date.
[English]
These include funding 47 emergency shelters and transitional housing projects and creating 380 units within First Nations, Inuit, Métis and Indigenous urban communities across Canada.
[Translation]
We have also supported Indigenous communities in completing 52 projects to improve community safety and well‑being, such as the Red Eagle Lodge in Saskatoon. This culturally safe space provides programs and services for Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse people to help in healing from trauma and addiction.
Furthermore, additional funding to deliver reliable Internet to over 3,000 Indigenous households will mean more tools for Indigenous women, girls, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse people, and better access to help in moments of danger.
[English]
Earlier this year, Budget 2024 provided $1.3 million over three years, starting in 2024-25, to co-develop with Indigenous partners a regional pilot for a Red Dress Alert system. An alerting system like this has the power to help ensure that when an Indigenous woman, girl, two-spirit or gender-diverse person goes missing, they return home safely. This initiative was prioritized as a subject of discussion during the second National Indigenous-Federal-Provincial-Territorial Roundtable on MMIWG and 2SLGBTQI+ People that took place in February this past year. That meeting brought together more than 230 participants from Indigenous organizations and federal, provincial and territorial governments. It yielded productive discussions not only on the Red Dress Alert, but also on the recommendations of Ms. Moore Rattray on an Indigenous and human rights ombudsperson, as well as provincial and territorial approaches to oversight and monitoring of Calls for Justice implementation.
I am pleased to report that plans are already under way for the third national roundtable, which will be held in early 2025, and at which I expect more progress will be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we know that there is much more work to be done to put an end to this national crisis. The Government of Canada is working alongside partners in Indigenous communities and grassroots organizations, as well as with provincial and territorial governments, to respond to the Calls for Justice, and to deliver programs, policies and legislation to end violence against Indigenous women, girls and Two-Spirit people.
This crisis will only be over when every Indigenous woman, girl, Two-Spirit and gender-diverse person in Canada is safe, honoured and free from violence.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gideon, for your opening remarks. We’ll now open the floor to questions from senators.
Senator White: Thank you, Madam Gideon.
I have a few questions, but first, I would like for you to expand upon the enforcement powers of the ombudsperson’s office. What are they, and how could they possibly work?
Ms. Gideon: That’s an excellent question.
Most federal ombudspersons don’t have that power. For us, this will be a new exploration of how we would be able to either structure that authority within the ombudspersons or make sure there is a navigation route that would be expedited toward an enforcement mechanism. We recognize the importance of accountability and results. That is what people are looking for.
There is also a connection to 1.10, which is to have an oversight body for Calls to Justice. That is separate from 1.7. We have done some work there. We had an Indigenous firm, Innovation 7, that met with a number of Indigenous representatives across the country to come up with some possible models for that followup of 1.10. In that context, they looked at whether a legislative mechanism was required, the types of definitions with respect to distinctions and a more inclusive approach. They looked at whether we should have an interim body while we look at implementing something that would be more permanent and potentially connected to the United Nations Declaration Act Action Plan measure as well, which is number 19, which talks about having Indigenous and human rights accountability mechanisms. There are various aspects to that, which could even be a tribunal. That is led by the Department of Justice. That 1.10 would also receive complaints and investigate. So there are similar powers to what is envisioned in 1.7. To conclude, Ms. Moore Rattray acknowledges in her report the potential connection that could be made between a national ombudsperson’s office and follow up to 1.10.
These are complexities within the federal system where, right now, we are doing some deeper policy analysis with our other federal colleagues to try to determine what might be the best, most expedient but also the clearer mechanism so that we’re not adding complexity in a system that already has complexity.
Senator White: Thank you. You answered my second question without me even asking it, so thank you.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, deputy minister, for being here.
I asked the prior witness a question around the co‑development agenda, consultations and when we might see a bill, given the work that the ministerial representative had done, the spade work, to get this all done. It doesn’t sound like there is much going on. Can you confirm that that’s the case? You tangentially mentioned continuing conversations, but that’s not co-development. Are we nowhere with this as of right now?
Ms. Gideon: When we received the report, we had a responsibility to ensure that report was extensively shared with our core partners. We also shared it with the federal-provincial-territorial working group on MMIWG. We have a federal steering committee on MMIWG where we have had conversations with respect to the report. Our minister also wrote to the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and members of the intergovernmental leaders forum, which are the modern treaty governments, and the National Family and Survivors Circle to also share the report. We have started to receive some feedback from partners with respect to that aspect.
We have been preparing a policy analysis to be able to give advice to ministers. The current authorities that we have would require us to go back to ministers to seek a co-development mandate with respect to legislation, specifically. When we co‑develop legislation, we will ask for drafting instructions. We will actually sit in a room with Indigenous partners and look at the drafting of the legislation. We would not come into a room with a draft legislative framework.
I’m not disputing what Ms. Moore Rattray said about, sometimes, it is just helpful to get something started. She has done extensive engagements, so it is not the same as federal bureaucrats developing something in a room and tabling it. We recognize that. That would be an option we would bring to ministers.
Senator Tannas: Okay, thank you.
I’m fresh from the Energy and Environment Committee meetings where consultation has become a big issue on Bill C-49, the Atlantic Accords.
Ms. Gideon: Yes.
Senator Tannas: I’m going to take the opportunity of having you here to ask you about your level of satisfaction with how you signal when you are consulting when there is a piece of legislation and so on. When we think about a lot of the smaller communities, some of them aren’t bigger than many villages, all scattered, and they don’t have the capacity to weed through hundreds of pieces of mail and determine which one is important and which one isn’t, necessarily. Are you satisfied that you have the consultation process right? I am concerned that it just keeps going on and on. We run into these situations where — and we’re about to have a co-development thing happen here. Could you just talk about that and your experience, as well as what, if anything, you are doing — making pink sheets or something that signals this is really important and you need to respond — anything. Can you talk about this?
Ms. Gideon: I will do this as briefly as I possibly can.
There is a federal consultation and accommodation framework. It is old. We did receive funding and a mandate to actually reform it and update it with Indigenous partners. That work has been under way, and we have had a lot of engagement on it. It’s been quite successful in terms of getting a lot of interest.
We also have funding and capacity to help support First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners who want to develop their own consultation protocols specific to either their community or nation. A number of those have actually been concluded.
It really helps, whether it is the federal government, private industry or provincial governments, to be able to know when they want to have a discussion that will be consultation with that particular nation. There has been a protocol that has been developed by them that lays out what that process or those expectations are.
Senator Tannas: That wasn’t the case with Nova Scotia. Was it followed for Bill C-49?
Ms. Gideon: I don’t have that answer for you, senator, but I can absolutely look into.
We also have a team that does provide advice to people who are going into that consultation space. We also have the benefit of our Department of Justice colleagues when we have very complex questions that require their assessment as to whether something would or would not meet the duty-to-consult threshold. They have the capacity to provide that assessment to us.
The other piece that is also very helpful is through the permanent bilateral mechanisms with the AFN, Inuit and Métis, we have been working on co-development principles. These have been endorsed with Inuit and Métis, and we have made substantial progress with the Assembly of First Nations. That is more than the consultation aspect — it is really around co‑development — but it provides very clear direction to federal officials about what is or what is not co-development with these particular Indigenous peoples.
Those are a few examples, senator. However, I take your point. Even with respect to some of the pieces of legislation that we have indicated we have done extensive consultation on those, I will still hear from certain chiefs that they are not in agreement with that piece of legislation, and I respect that. It then becomes a question of whether we can create an ethical space whereby we can have discussions, where I am not presuming that they have agreed — I recognize that they have not — but we can work through ways in which we can navigate that so that we can come to an outcome that they feel is satisfactory to them.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Welcome back to our witnesses today. Thank you for being with us.
I’m going to follow up on what has been asked already and some of what you have said. This very significant consultation just happened through the Ministerial Special Representative. People have been engaged on this important point of the creation of the ombuds position and what that should look like, what it should do and what its priorities should be, et cetera. You now have it. You are going to have another roundtable early next year, 2025. Could you outline to us when you think we will have — we’re a legislative body here — legislation in our hands to look at, or when will the house have legislation, depending on which of the houses you decide to introduce that legislation through? When do you estimate we’ll have that legislation to start moving this forward in a concrete way? What needs to happen to get to that point?
Ms. Gideon: I cannot give you an estimate of time because it is outside the purview of what would be my decision-making authority, senator. I think that the process for us is to bring back policy advice to ministers and for ministers to make a decision with respect to how they want to move this forward. We absolutely need a cabinet authority to implement the wonderful ideas and models that have been put forward here.
One of the things that I believe Ms. Moore Rattray also said is that there can potentially be some interim steps taken as well to try to demonstrate progress as we continue to move through the process. Even with respect to the legislation for the National Council for Reconciliation that we felt was relatively straightforward, it did take a bit of time for that legislation to go through the parliamentary process. I’m happy to signal that on Friday there was a call-out for the appointment of board members or council members, so we’re at the implementation stage, but it did take along longer than we had anticipated. That is a recent example of that particular situation. We know that not all partners have spoken favourably about that legislation as well, so we were not able to get consensus across the board with respect to Indigenous peoples. It is just important to also knowledge that within that context. We have to be respectful of the fact that we may encounter that as well in this context.
In order for it to happen, we do need to have policy authority, and we do need to have a source of funds to be able to implement this type of work. We have some resources that are outlined in the MSR’s report in order to develop the process, but we do not have resources for the implementation of the model that is there, so that will be part of the process.
Senator Coyle: Yes. I know things take time. I understand that. I was more interested in your end as opposed to our end and then your end again. We’re the middle piece in terms of legislation. You do the front end, you do the implementation, and we just study it and hopefully pass it or improve it and pass it, if required.
There are so many things. These Calls for Justice are a part of what you are working on, and you are working on these Calls to Action, and there are lots of other things as well. I’m trying to get a sense, within the grand scheme of things — many of which are heavy and complex and take money, time, resources and attention — how does something like this report — Ms. Moore Rattray was a Ministerial Special Representative. That, to me, indicated a level of priority being given to this particular piece of work. I would hope, once this important piece of input into the next stages is there, that it doesn’t languish. I guess that is what I am saying. I just want to understand how it will be given life over and above the existing mechanisms that are in place. There will be a roundtable and that may move some things forward, but what else will happen to move this forward?
Ms. Gideon: Again, we’re very happy to be here in your first meeting, but this is my first week with the ministers back in the house and for us to be able to sit with them and talk about exactly what you are saying, senator —
Senator Coyle: We’ll ask you later.
Ms. Gideon: — which is, “What are your priorities for the fall? How are you advancing?” Everything is subject to, of course, ensuring that we have sufficient time for ministers and all of their cabinet committees and all of these pieces. I am not trying to make excuses, I’m just trying to talk about the practicality of the fact that we are right now in the beginning of the fall session.
In terms of our prioritization in the department, as deputy, I can say that Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is a top priority of the department. I can say that 1.7 and 1.10 is what we have been prioritizing within the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the 2S plus team. We do have a dedicated team for this work. It is small, it is mighty, but this is the work that we have been focusing on.
We recognize that there is still a lot of need for programs, services and supports, and other departments need to continue to do everything they can to align their programs and services so that they can better respond to the Calls for Justice, and that’s the advocacy and coordination role that we play.
From a Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada perspective, we do see the importance of greater transparency around accountability and around the Calls for Justice. This is why we are also looking at putting out information in a different way than just the annual federal pathway report. We want to do more transparent tracking of the progress on Calls for Justice. Ms. Moore Rattray referenced the CBC report, and that is what people are referencing. We would, of course, disagree with the assessment of progress from the CBC. We do believe that the large majority of Calls for Justice where the federal government is involved has advanced. We would also say that most of the Calls for Justice will never be completed and are not written in a way that is a checkmark exercise to say, “You are done.” It is about an intergenerational journey of transformative and systemic change to eliminate violence, to eliminate racism and discrimination, and that will be an ongoing societal justice issue that we will be continuing to confront. The government can’t stop work in that area. It will need to continue for all the generations to come.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Ms. Gideon, thank you for your courage as a Mi’kmaq woman working on the inside to bring about change. Thank you as well for telling us the not so good news when things are not done with the necessary support of First Peoples.
I’d like to acknowledge that we have with us today an ally of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Chief Érica Beaudin of the Cowessess First Nation.
My mother is Innu. She speaks Innu-Aimun every single day. She was taught French in residential school. Many nations in the province of Quebec have had French imposed on them. In 2024, the government continues to support organizations that do not operate in French and appointees who do not speak a word of French, like the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages — although he does speak his own Indigenous language and English. People can’t get services from these organizations in French or they struggle to. Thankfully, people are taking action.
The Winnipeg-based national circle for families who’ve lost a loved one operates solely in English. It is funded by the federal government. These are Calls for Justice, calls that are decades old. This is a systemic language barrier that I can no longer accept. I’m transparent: My questions are always the same no matter which committee I’m participating in. How can we do away with these barriers? How can we ensure that the full impact of the National Family and Survivors Circle is felt in the rest of Canada, which includes Quebec?
When it comes to Ms. Moore Rattray’s report, how do we make sure that the voices of those whose first or second language isn’t English is heard by the people on the inside at every level?
I’ve been in the Senate only three years, but I know that work to deliver the administrative agenda and programs that are important for families will slow down as we draw closer to an election. How can the Senate put forward recommendations to make clear that there is an issue so that work on the administrative side continues, in the face of a potential policy change or election? I’m deeply concerned about that. We all know it. Behind the walls, behind the scenes, we’re all hearing it. The priorities of the parties or the caucus members in both houses will take precedence, but families shouldn’t suffer because of that.
In your experience, have you seen initiatives where the work has carried on even if an election is looming or held?
Ms. Gideon: I’ll answer the first question. Senator, I completely agree that the ombuds’ services need to be available in French, as well as in Indigenous languages and English, as was mentioned. I think Ms. Moore Rattray’s report takes into account many factors. The regional component, for instance, will help ensure that, even if the national office doesn’t have capacity in all Indigenous languages, the regional offices — if they do move forward — will have capacity in the Indigenous languages spoken locally. That’s why the recommendation was made.
It’s important to find a way to recognize the diversity of Indigenous peoples, families and communities, and to create an environment where they feel safe. Ombuds’ offices will be required to provide services in French to families wishing to interact and speak in French. The mechanism for that hasn’t been developed yet. We don’t know whether that requirement will fall under the authority of an officer of Parliament, in accordance with the Official Languages Act. That’s something that will have to be examined. The ombuds’ services are for the public, so I think this is something the government would want to prioritize. Certainly, should the committee wish to underscore the importance of this element in its study and report, we would welcome any such effort.
When it comes to the federal election period, there are limits to what the public service or administrative arm of the government can do, particularly in relation to public programming. In my experience, that doesn’t stop us from continuing to carry out policy analysis in relation to recommendations, especially those that have the support of Indigenous partners. As you well know, these partners are governments, and when Indigenous governments establish a mandate for certain actions, we try to work within the mandate those governments have given us in a respectful way. Of course, we can’t make commitments on behalf of the next government, but if we can continue working on the implementation side to help Indigenous governments, that is the approach I would take during an election period. I hope that answer is helpful.
Senator Audette: That is reassuring. Thanks.
[English]
The Chair: We still have time for another question or two if anyone has any they would like to ask. Seeing no hands up, the time for this panel is complete. I wish to again thank you both for joining us today, and if you wish to make any subsequent submissions, please submit them by email to our clerk here, Sébastien Payet, within seven days.
We will now suspend briefly to allow us to go briefly in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)