THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; and, in camera, to consider the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 16 of Part 4 of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Marty Deacon (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I’m Marty Deacon, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.
I will start by offering my colleagues the opportunity to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance, Quebec.
Senator Martel: Richard Martel, Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Hay: Hello. Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Ince: Welcome. Tony Ince, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you. We do recognize our witness who’s going to be speaking with us this afternoon.
Before we start, we tried to inform, through the steering committee, the program for this evening, the intent and goals, but it has been flexible and unwinding based on witness availability and what we can do.
As a reminder, we are going to have three robust panels. Following the panels publicly, we will have a round table. That is where we are going to be briefly — two minutes — sharing some of the experiences we have had over the summer related to the work of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee. Following that, we’ll be looking at our report.
Thank you all for being here this evening. Thank you to our guests around the table. Senator Martel, thank you for joining us, and a shout-out to Senator Cotter, who is joining us today. Thank you for that.
Today, we begin our consideration of Bill S-223, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. We’re going to hear from three panels of witnesses today.
For our first panel this evening, we are pleased to welcome the sponsor of the bill, the Honourable Senator Mary Jane McCallum. Thank you for joining us today, senator. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that you have five minutes for opening remarks.
Hon. Mary Jane McCallum, sponsor of the bill, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to make two requests before we start. Because this bill was co-developed with First Nations, they are the experts, and they are the ones who should answer many of the questions you may ask. I worked with them on it. I understand, but they are the boots-on-the-ground people. It’s Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, and the First Nations Lands Advisory Board, or LAB, if I can have a decision.
The second request is if I can expand my 5 minutes to 10 minutes, because this is a hard issue to grasp for people. When I asked senators to speak to my bill, many were hesitant because it’s a hard topic to grasp.
The Chair: Thank you, senator, for your request.
As you proceed with your statement, we are going to invite one of your colleague’s guests who is in the room to join you at the table, and the other colleague we are going to bring in virtually.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Chair: That may take a minute or two. We will have you start.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Chair: We ask you to stay as close to five minutes as possible. We recognize and respect that you have asked for more. We have the 40-minute total. We will do our best to work from there.
Senator McCallum: Could I ask when my four minutes are up; could you let me know? I think I have 15 minutes.
The Chair: We can do that.
Senator McCallum: Okay. I want to thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs for the privilege of introducing evidence on the distinctive and unique challenges that are making it almost impossible for First Nations to enact their bylaws, despite legislation that was introduced in 1999 and 2014 to allow First Nations broader authority in that area.
Honorable senators, Bill S-223 was co-developed with the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, and the Lands Advisory Board. It is their bill, and also of the leaders and the people they represent. I had the privilege of bringing it to the Senate floor once I understood and determined that there was a huge gap in justice that was uniquely negatively affecting the rights to the basic human needs of safety and security of First Nations living on-reserve that was not being addressed by governments. This was beyond the control of First Nations, as it involved legislation. That was the reason for the co-development of Bill S-223 and Bill S-224. As the saying goes, if you see it, you must speak up.
In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin . . . .
Section 15 makes it clear that every individual in Canada is to be treated with the same respect, dignity and consideration. This means that governments must not discriminate on any of these grounds in their laws or programs, and that’s part of the reason we’re looking at this bill.
Section 25, Aboriginal and treaty rights, guarantees that:
. . . certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada . . . .
Self-determination and self-government have been acknowledged by Canada as inherent rights under section 35.
For some reserves in Manitoba and in other parts of Canada, it has been over 25 years that they have been unable to enforce their laws — laws that would make their communities, families, Elders, youth and children safer. They would also address public health issues. This would never be allowed to happen in municipalities and cities.
When the RCMP refuses to enact bylaws on the reserve that would make the communities and members safe and secure from drug dealers, or they want to prevent the spread of viruses during a pandemic, then the RCMP — to the public — essentially undermines the leadership authority and undermines self-determination.
Senators, enactment of First Nations bylaws by the RCMP and prosecution by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, existed before 2014, and it worked well. People felt secure and safe from domestic and intimate partner violence.
As a dentist, I worked for over 30 years delivering dental care to people in isolated reserves in Manitoba and saw first-hand —
The Chair: Excuse me, you’re at the four-minute mark.
Senator McCallum: — the deteriorating circumstances over the years. Gangs moved in, violence increased, and security decreased. I witnessed premature deaths. As a First Nations person, when I go home to my reserve, I see the difference in the structure and delivery of security and safety services as well as the delivery of essential services between the reserve versus the cities of Winnipeg and Ottawa. Policing units are available and willing to enforce laws in municipalities and cities, but that doesn’t happen.
In here, you will see the history of Bill C-49, with which Parliament intended to create new, enhanced law-making in 1999. Bill C-428 eliminated having the government do the bylaws. Despite that, we have had trouble all these years.
I have a quote from a man who said that, before 2014, he was living up North. It was a dry reserve; people were pleased. After 2014, they weren’t able to enforce that same law. So this bylaw — I’m going to end here — had a mandatory review done by the minister’s office prior to 2014 and was enforceable. Yet, despite that review and approval, it was not enforced all of a sudden.
The same exact law that was valid at one time is no longer valid. One RCMP member was quoted as saying — and this is in the report — these are not real laws. If you look at the rest of the document that I gave you, it goes into policing as an essential service. We are here to fight for the same rights that other Canadians have and that we don’t. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum.
Just to clarify, one of your witness guests, Andrew Beynon, would you step to the table, please? Thank you.
Michael Anderson is online. Thank you for joining us online.
Is the Grand Chief Settee here? We will carry on now. We have until about 4:30-4:40. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask questions. Thank you very much.
Senator Ince: Thank you all for being here. Senator, the amendment of sections 18(a) and 18(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act adds that the duties of an RCMP officer include the prevention of crime and offences under First Nations laws as well as the execution of warrants and related services under First Nations laws.
In your view, how would the RCMP officers access authoritative copies of the First Nations laws or bylaws they would enforce if Bill S-223 becomes law?
Andrew Beynon, Director, Land Code Governance, First Nations Lands Advisory Board: Senator, I would answer that, first of all, by saying that, typically, these laws are published in the First Nations Gazette, so there is a source where First Nations can make an official version available. Under the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, where I work with a lot of Land Code First Nations, they take steps to also clarify what the official version of the law is. Making this change to the RCMP Act, it is still the responsibility of First Nations to make sure they are providing the RCMP an authoritative, accurate, up-to-date version of the law.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much, senator and Mr. Beynon, for being here. Senator, thank you for introducing this important bill.
My question is to ask you to educate me about the matters we’re dealing with here. I look at Bill S-223, and it refers to First Nations laws defined in subsection 2(1) of the Framework Agreement on the First Nation Land Management Act. When I look at that act, I’m not seeing a lot there in terms of the definition of First Nations law. I wonder if you could provide a little more information.
Today, some First Nations exercise law-making authority pursuant to the Indian Act and the Framework Agreement on the First Nation Land Management Act. In your view, how would the RCMP officers access this law and access authoritative copies of First Nations law? How is that law made?
And if the bill passes, how would you see training the RCMP to understand these laws better?
Mr. Beynon: I’ll offer a quick answer. The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management is a government-to-government agreement signed by Canada as well as First Nations. Pursuant to that agreement as well as the legislation that Parliament has enacted, the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act, which you quoted, there is a recognized list of law-making powers of First Nations in the text. First Nations, in order to make a law under that authority, have to stay within the scope of what is provided for there.
I don’t think that there will be difficulty in practice in working with the RCMP under either Indian Act bylaws or the Land Code laws to understand what is the most accurate, up-to-date, authentic version of the law.
You mentioned training for the RCMP. I think that’s a good point to raise, senator, because if this change to legislation is made, it gives statutory authority to the RCMP to be able to enforce those laws, or, at least, it clarifies what we believe to be an existing power. But practical training and local understandings with the detachments regarding the laws that have been enacted would be a very good step to take with RCMP officers.
Michael Anderson, Policing and Public Safety Advisor, Office of the Grand Chief, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.: Thank you for the question, senator. As part of the agreement that MKO has with the RCMP D Division in Manitoba and the Public Prosecution Service, called our Protocol Agreement, which appears in Tab 2 of our book of documents, we actually are doing this very thing. After 30 years of non‑enforcement, there is very little muscle memory on working with First Nations laws.
A large part of the work that we’re doing with our key partners is to walk them through how to actually do lookups on the First Nations Gazette, fng.ca. I can share that I actually logged on with Staff Sergeant Alex Bear of D Division to have them walk through fng.ca with me. At the time, it turned out that the browser being used by the RCMP was so out of date, it couldn’t actually see the Gazette. We have been working at a pretty basic level to make sure the detachments, the division and others can see the laws that are enacted by First Nations, including the thousands of laws that were enacted prior to 2014 with the ministerial power of disallowance, when the First Nations Tax Commission created the First Nations Gazette. Canada sent the tax commission copies of all the vetted bylaws that had been enacted under ministerial disallowance, and all of those were posted.
You can search the name of the First Nation, and all of their bylaws will come up. It’s actually very simple to use once you understand how to use it. We have actually participated in what amounts to training sessions with our local RCMP in Manitoba to become familiarized with how to access that information. That’s a significant improvement over the days when you had to phone an Indian Affairs bylaws officer and hope they’d answer the phone and get back to you. So, they are all posted online.
Subsection 86(1) of the Indian Act, in its current form, provides for publication in the First Nations Gazette as an option. When we do bylaw development under our Protocol arrangement with MKO, we always post it on the Gazette so that new laws, particularly those under our framework laws, are available to police, to prosecutorial services and to Manitoba Justice so that all of our key partners can see these new laws as they are being enacted in real time.
When we enacted our first COVID framework bylaw, which was the first bylaw after 2014 that was accepted by the RCMP and the prosecution service in Manitoba, we posted it online in real time during a major conference. We arranged for the editor of the First Nations Gazette to bring that bylaw online so we could see it come into force in real time.
That’s the level we’re working at, senator, to try to ensure there is access to the laws of our nations by policing and prosecutorial authorities. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that question.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, Senator McCallum, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing. Thank you for putting forward the bill.
I have some technical questions, and I hope we can get some clear answers on them. Does Bill S-223 provide the RCMP with sufficient clarity to enforce First Nation bylaws, without recreating a federal approval process that would undermine First Nations’ law-making authorities?
Mr. Beynon: I’ll take a first cut at that.
We support the proposed bill and the changes to the legislation. As I said earlier, we believe the RCMP already has this authority and that First Nation laws are encompassed by the reference to the laws of Canada. However, we think it is very helpful of the senators to propose legislation to make that authority crystal clear by spelling out a reference to First Nations laws.
In working with the RCMP, if this legislation is passed, my friend Michael Anderson has described some of the practical steps that would happen on the ground to work out arrangements to understand the laws. We do not, at all, think this would be a return to the old disallowance power of the minister. The RCMP’s role would be to work with the laws that have been enacted by First Nations, not to function as a new disallowance or approval power.
Senator Yussuff: In the same regard, if the RCMP were to enforce a law you are asking them to, they would have to rely upon the prosecutorial services to ensure that charging someone — that there’s some relevancy of being prosecuted; otherwise, there’s no point to it.
Second, with regard to the bill, Senator McCallum, in the drafting of the bill, did you get any legal clarity regarding whether the bill will meet Charter compliance?
Mr. Beynon: Could you remind me of the first part of the question again?
Senator Yussuff: If the RCMP were to enforce the law, would prosecutors prosecute that law, knowing full well, yea or nay, whether that prosecution might be successful?
Mr. Beynon: Thank you.
The police officers who are with us might want to testify to that question, but our view is that governments — whether they be First Nations governments, municipal governments, regional governments, provincial governments or the federal government — should be able to count on turning to police services to assist in laying charges.
The question regarding the availability of prosecutors is a separate one. We have a number of First Nations — approximately five now — that have taken private prosecutions through the courts because prosecutors haven’t offered assistance. These laws are enforceable in the courts. In every single one of the private prosecutions, the disposition was favourable to the First Nations law.
If the senators adopt this law, then we will do our best to try to work with the provincial prosecutors or federal prosecutors and, if necessary, private prosecutors to assist in advancing charges through the courts. The mechanism will find it.
At the same time, I think senators are aware that Senator McCallum has proposed a different bill that would clarify the authority and responsibilities of federal prosecutors in regard to the enforcement of these laws.
Senator Yussuff: On the question of the Charter, does anybody have an answer whether the bill is Charter-compliant?
Mr. Beynon: I would suggest that this bill is Charter-compliant because it’s just clarifying a range of responsibilities.
Senator Yussuff: Is that a legal opinion or your opinion?
Mr. Beynon: That would be my opinion, for the record.
Senator Yussuff: The reason I’m asking this is not to be difficult but because that’s a question we always ask a senator. We ask it frequently in the chamber: Is this Charter-compliant and if you can assure our colleagues from a legal perspective. That it is where the challenges will be for people wanting to adopt the legislation. It may be well-meaning but not necessarily Charter-compliant.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Senator Yussuff. I appreciate that final part, which might come up again. However, we must move on.
Senator Hay: I might pull the thread on that.
Senator McCallum, thank you for this. I recall your speech in June. You have said that Bill S-223 deals with enforcement, and Bill S-224 deals with prosecution, and that they are intimately braided together. You have also said that the RCMP won’t enforce First Nations laws that won’t be prosecuted. They are separate bills, and they could pass at different times. If Bill S-223 becomes a law on its own — stand-alone — what would actually change for a community if it’s just a stand-alone law?
Then, since that bill only applies to the RCMP, how would it help First Nations that are policed in Ontario or policed by the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP — not the RCMP — or by First Nations’ own police services in Ontario?
So maybe I didn’t pick up your thread after all; I picked up my own.
Senator McCallum: I’ll just briefly answer this first.
There are different arrangements in different provinces. When he talked about not enforcing, in Calgary, they already have an Indigenous court there, and they work with police officers, and they have prosecutors and defence. They have five judges, and they have a court case. So it works.
If Bill S-223 passes, like he said, there are different prosecutors who can be hired privately. The OPP is separate from the rest of Canada because they brought in a human rights complaint against the government about this enforcement and benefits. They went into negotiations so they didn’t have to take it to court; now, another province will do that.
So, there is that capability. There are other groups across Canada that hire their own prosecutors.
Senator Hay: Senator, do you have any concerns that it would perpetuate different laws? You know, it’s different in Ontario than it is in Manitoba or Alberta. What I’m getting at is if you’re worried that, depending on where you live, you would have more equitable policing? You gave an example of Calgary, but it’s not the same in Ontario; we have the OPP versus that RCMP. Are you worried that it just creates more fracturing?
Senator McCallum: No, because this law would go across Canada. It existed before, like I said, so it would go across Canada. And people have their own governance systems; they’ll continue with that. But the ones that don’t have justice right now would be able to get some sort of justice, something that they can fall back on. Can I ask Mr. Anderson to comment?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, thank you, senator. The concept of the bill is essentially to make it crystal clear that it is the will of Parliament that the RCMP enforce First Nations laws. It is important to understand that a bylaw, for example, under the Indian Act has the force and effect of a federal regulation, under the Interpretation Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statutory Instruments Regulations. They are laws of Canada.
So the concept is that, uniformly, police enforce these laws of Canada, which have the force and effect of a federal regulation. That’s really what this is about. On May 21, 2021, we had an enormous meeting hosted by Indigenous Services Canada and Justice Canada about how to apply enforcement of First Nation laws in response to the COVID pandemic. There were at least 30 senior officials from across the country, including my colleague Andrew Beynon and also our colleagues at the Public Interest Law Centre, which answers the Charter question because they had reviewed that expressly, I wanted to add.
In that meeting, we made it really clear that we believe the RCMP must enforce First Nation laws already because they have the force and effect of a federal regulation; they are the laws of Canada. The purpose of Bill S-223 is for Parliament to say it is the will of Parliament for RCMP to enforce these laws. So that is really that element.
The companion bill, Bill S-224, also speaks to the same, the other side of that, to ensure that the effective enforcement of First Nation laws also results, where necessary, in the potential prosecution of those laws. I want to add while we’re discussing this that our concept is embedded in restorative justice. The bylaws that we’re building all have a restorative justice provision. We are dealing with the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the justice system writ large because of the structure of our laws. So, actually, bringing in First Nations legal traditions into the legal framework of Canada as an actively enforceable element is going to assist in achieving many of the objectives that broader Canadian society holds. It is in the public interest to do so. Thank you for that, senator.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s very helpful.
Based on time, I’m going to ask Senator White and Senator Patterson to pose your questions back to back.
Senator White: Thank you for this presentation. It really sounds like MKO has a structure that works. My question, though, is how we would reconcile it — I know you are familiar with the Atlantic — when a number of provinces don’t want the RCMP in their communities, for the most part, let alone to now go in, give them broader scope to go in and enforce their own bylaws. How would I be able to speak to those communities and say this is what we’re doing? Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Given that this is a very important question, I’m going to cede my question to you so you can have the full time to respond to Senator White. Thanks.
Mr. Beynon: I would offer this comment: Essentially, what this bill is doing is recognizing and clarifying an authority that we believe is already there. The RCMP has, in the text, the authority to enforce laws of Canada as a police service. What Parliament would be doing here is to make it crystal clear that amongst those laws are First Nation laws.
Practically speaking, it is still up to individual First Nations what laws they enact. If they want to work with the RCMP and see extensive enforcement of trespassing, nuisance, illegal dumping — a wide range of laws — then enact those laws, reach out to the RCMP and try to work out the practical day-to-day arrangements. If a First Nation is concerned about their own culture, tradition or particular approach and would not like to see the RCMP enforce that, then structure the law in a way that it is drafted to point to a traditional remedy and the activities of the First Nations community itself.
This, I would suggest, is not forcing the RCMP onto communities. It is just removing what has been a barrier to cooperation with the RCMP up until now.
Senator McCallum: Many First Nations across Canada have their own First Nations policing units, and they are actively working. They are considered peace officers. I had them on my reserve. They were able to get rid of the drug dealers when the RCMP were not even coming in. So there are different agreements, and maybe Mr. Anderson can talk to that, the tripartite —
Mr. Anderson: In our materials, we have a tab — Tab 4 of our documents — comparing the commitments of the RCMP under the tripartite policing agreements from the mid-1990s, which had a list of the laws that would be enforced under those agreements, and in the more modern agreements, circa 2015 and forward, where it has been de-emphasized. Essentially, the RCMP is suggesting that bylaw enforcement is secondary to the rest of their duties. But our First Nations would view collaborative enforcement in accordance with our policing priorities. That is really the first priority so that we can make agreements to do that.
In our Protocol Agreement with RCMP Manitoba, we are crafting bylaws that are accepted by the police and by the prosecution service as valid and Charter-compliant because we are voluntarily collaborating on the development of laws, and we actually go back and forth — there is no approval involved — until we get it right and until we all accept that they are valid and Charter-compliant. And then we move forward with it. We are doing that by agreement.
As I understand, we may be one of the only places in Canada where we actually have a tripartite arrangement where First Nations law-making is supported by the police and by the prosecutorial service. I should add that one of our colleague partners is Manitoba Courts, because when we write these tickets — we amended the Provincial Offences Act in Manitoba to be able to write a standard Form 1 ticket for an Indian Act offence, the very same ticket you would get for a Highway Traffic Act offence. Police and our First Nation safety officers can use that to issue offence notices. It is the provincial courts that are collaborating with us on processing those.
We have recognition of First Nation laws as the primary aspect and also in our operating agreements with the Minister of Justice in Manitoba for First Nations safety officers. They are expressly authorized to enforce their bylaws at, for example, provincially operated airports and other areas. We are basically, with agreements, building the tools that we need to have collaborative enforcement by the RCMP, our safety officers, the provincial justice system and our own First Nations.
The Chair: Thank you. This brings us to the end of our time.
Senator McCallum: I will respond to her question on First Nations policing, and I will submit it in a brief, okay?
The Chair: That would be great. Thank you, very much, senator. We are ending our time with our sponsor of the bill. Thank you, Senator McCallum, and fellow ad hoc witnesses this afternoon for helping us sort out some of these important issues today.
For this panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming Lesley Soper, Director General, Policing Policy, Public Safety Canada; Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Ebert, Operational Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Chief Superintendent Simon Pillay, Director, National Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For some, welcome back.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. I remind you that we have five minutes for opening remarks each, and I will invite Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Ebert to proceed when you are ready.
Jennifer Ebert, Assistant Commissioner, Operational Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good afternoon and thank you, Chair and honourable members of the committee and, Senator McCallum, for your bill. Thank you for the invitation to appear today as we gather on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabek Nation and recognize the continuing presence of First Nations, Inuit and Métis in this region.
I am responsible for Operational Policing Services for Indigenous, provincial, territorial and municipal policing across the country. Today with me is Chief Superintendent Simon Pillay, who is the Director General responsible for National Criminal Operations. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs as part of your study on Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
The RCMP recognizes the importance of this committee’s review and discussion regarding the enforcement of First Nations’ laws and the importance of clear legislative authorities to support effective policing and public safety in First Nations communities across the country, as we police 550 of them.
Bill S-223 seeks to address long-standing uncertainty regarding the enforcement of First Nation laws and the authorities available to police services while carrying out that role. The RCMP is already mandated to enforce laws within many First Nations communities where it serves as a police of jurisdiction. The bill speaks to broader questions around the roles, responsibilities and authorities specific to band bylaws and First Nation laws, which have been the subject of discussion.
The RCMP continues to seek clarity regarding the legal barriers and authorities that impact effective enforcement of First Nation laws, including band bylaws. Legislative amendments are needed to establish clear police authorities for the enforcement of non-criminal summary offences under band bylaws, including arrest authorities for police, comparable to those that exist under municipal and provincial summary offence frameworks throughout the country.
The RCMP remains committed to working closely with the Indigenous communities that we police, policing partners and the Government of Canada to support community safety and effective administration of justice. This includes leading and supporting discussions regarding the enforcement of First Nations laws across Canada, specifically what are known as band bylaws. One important first step in advancing this effort is to define the scope of RCMP authority, responsibility and the overall capacity for enforcing these laws.
I thank you and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We are going to move to questions now. I will ask our deputy chair to start.
Senator Ince: Thank you, all, for being here.
A June 2026 report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs outlines the barriers for the enforcement of First Nation laws cited by witnesses, which include concerns by police officers about the validity of First Nation laws. First Nations can make laws and bylaws under the Indian Act that are punishable by summary conviction.
However, research indicates there are challenges for the enforcement of First Nation bylaws under the Indian Act, in part, because the legislation does not specify who is responsible for enforcing bylaw infractions.
That will be open to anyone.
Ms. Ebert: First, I wish to state that, as I have previously stated in this room at a previous appearance, Indigenous laws that stem from the Indian Act, First Nation band bylaws, are — as we have shared with our employees — presumptively valid. What I mean by that is if they don’t contradict another piece of federal legislation, like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they are to be deemed presumptively valid.
As far as who is responsible for enforcing those, we as the RCMP in those communities need to work with the community to establish a mechanism in which we can enforce. Now, the word “enforce” is something that needs to be clearly understood. The policing, we take our authorities from specific aspects of the Criminal Code. When we are enforcing, it includes summary offences underneath municipal and provincial bylaws.
We need to be very careful when we, as national headquarters of the RCMP, provide clear direction to our membership on where we get our authorities from and how we can use those.
There is various enforcement currently being done across the country. We need consistent authority that would apply nationally to every province and territory, and I would even go so far as to say of all police jurisdictions, as well as some of the work that we have been doing to develop a national policy in relation to the enforcement of First Nation laws, specifically band bylaws.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am trying to understand this more clearly. Is the RCMP in favour of the bill, or does it think it contains more problems than solutions? So far, I sense a certain hesitation, but perhaps I am mistaken, and I would like to clarify this.
[English]
Ms. Ebert: I can respond to that question; thank you, senator.
As far as this bill is concerned, I believe it is very aspirational in what it is attempting to do. We are very clear in what our duties already are. I believe it was Mr. Anderson who spoke before me who said the RCMP already knows this is their duty. I would agree with him on that.
Where my concern comes to rest with this bill is that no new authorities are given to the police. Currently, over the past several months, we have been working with our partners at the Department of Justice and internally within the RCMP to define what our clear authorities are and whether or not they allow us warrantless arrest authorities to enforce, and effectively enforce, some of these band bylaws.
There are certain factors that exist that we need clarity on legislatively that we have been working to try to seek that clarity because, currently, it is being interpreted differently across the country. We need national clarity on what those authorities are so that we can develop national policy — therefore, direction — for the RCMP members out in the field so that they have a clear understanding of their powers to enforce band bylaws and First Nation laws.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I understand that the bill clarifies the authority. If the bill is passed, you will clearly have the authority. You will then be able to exercise your usual discretion as peace officers to conduct an investigation and bring proceedings, depending on the nature of the offence or the regulation in question.
[English]
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question. I don’t think it is that clean and clear. I am not a lawyer. However, from the day that we learn about powers of arrest and investigation, we understand what our authorities are underneath the Criminal Code. We also understand how they apply to other summary conviction offences.
There has been recent debate, I would say, with some of our partners in Justice as to whether or not that applies to warrantless arrest in relation to band bylaws, and it is where we stem our authorities from. It does not mean we are going to arrest somebody on every band bylaw or First Nation law. But in order to be able to effectively enforce some of the band bylaws that do exist, we would need to be able to access certain provisions under the Criminal Code. That is the legislative reform that I am referring to.
Senator Cardozo: I am not familiar with the concept of First Nation law, I must admit. I am looking for guidance and information on how laws are developed and then implemented.
You were talking about having consistency across the country, whereas the way I see it, we might have different First Nations across the country having their own laws, which may or may not be the same. How does that work on your end? Are you able to work with slightly different laws from nation to nation?
Ms. Ebert: If my colleagues don’t mind, I will take that one again.
You are absolutely correct that First Nation laws for every band and community will differ. There are certain communities that don’t even have bylaws; it differs from community to community as far as what, specifically, they are going to outline. There are some communities that lean very heavily on subsection 85.1 of the Indian Act, which is the intoxicants bylaw. There are other communities that refer to various other ban bylaws in relation to all aspects of community living and public safety.
Some of the confusion, I would say, happens when one band is not consistent with another set of bylaws. That is why we need legislation that is clear and consistent in relation to what the authorities of the RCMP are, and then we can develop a national policy that provides those directions.
If the clarity is around all band bylaws being presumptively valid — that is something we have already stated; the Indian Act is a federal piece of legislation — then how we support the community and that band bylaw may look different in every community, but the authorities that we have as police officers to exercise our authorities need to be consistent. Although municipal bylaws across the country differ greatly, we still use the same set of authorities to enforce those bylaws.
Senator Cardozo: So, it’s about giving the RCMP the authority to respect the variations in the bylaws, the way you do with municipalities currently. Is that right?
Ms. Ebert: That is correct. I’m going to turn to my colleague, Simon Pillay, to see if he wants to add anything.
Chief Superintendent Simon Pillay, Director, National Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I think the easiest way to answer this is to explain how we perform enforcement with other summary regulatory offences that are not criminal in nature.
Every city has different bylaws. Provincial laws, such as traffic acts, are also summary offences that are not criminal in nature. In all of those cases, there is provincial-level bridge legislation that gives us access to our authorities under section 495. That’s why when we stop somebody for a municipal bylaw, we can briefly detain them, ask for their ID and inform them of the violation. If they ask if they are free to go before we finish the enforcement aspect, the answer is “no,” because, at the end of the day, we have the coercive authority of the Criminal Code behind that stop for that offence.
The Assistant Commissioner is explaining that we need that same authority at the federal level for these federal summary non-criminal offences, and that’s what we currently don’t have.
Senator Cardozo: And it’s always non-criminal that we’re looking at in this bill?
Mr. Pillay: The Indian Act enables First Nations band councils to create summary regulatory offences that are federal but not criminal. So, there is usually bridge legislation for the municipal-provincial comparators that accesses that same regime of authorities the police rely upon.
It’s worth noting that police are trained right from training in how to properly apply arrest authorities, first in criminal matters, and then, when they are deployed to the field, they learn how to apply them in the municipal-provincial regimes. They understand section 495 and the restrictions and authorities that come with it, and we are trying to get that same type of authority for the federal offences created by the Indian Act.
Senator Patterson: I will push into that a little more, for those of us who aren’t clear on how this very complex web works.
We have talked about this particular bill and that you’re missing this bridging legislation. Do you find, in principle, that the content of this bill helps you with what you’re trying to achieve? If not, what else could be considered under this bill to strengthen it to both give you the bridging element and achieve the intent of this bill?
I ask that because you said 550 nations. That is massive, and there is a lot of variation.
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this bill gives us that authority. While it would clarify what we already believe we know — that it is our duty to support First Nations communities and support their laws — that piece of legislation that police utilize normally for the exercise of their duties wouldn’t be provided in this.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, so one of our colleagues at Justice Canada might be better positioned to answer that question at another time, and they could correct me.
I don’t know if this bill can be reframed underneath the RCMP Act, because that is what its target is, or whether legislative reform is required in some other capability. That would need to be done with our partners at Justice Canada to define exactly what that is.
We as police, as my colleague Chief Superintendent Pillay has already said, learn from Depot what our police authorities are under the Criminal Code. That’s how we operate from the day we graduate.
Now, I also want to be clear that it doesn’t mean that we can’t do anything because we don’t have this piece of bridging legislation. There are four provinces across the country — and you heard from our colleagues in Manitoba — that are doing something; it varies in each province as to how that is being done. What is being done currently in Manitoba is a promising best practice, I would say.
Senator Patterson: I’m just going to follow up and dig deeper. We also heard from Mr. Anderson that there seems to be inconsistent knowledge and communication of the changes in bylaws. I think they referenced a website that couldn’t be accessible. We know communication is challenging at the best of times, and across 550 sites, it can be even more challenging.
What are you doing in order to try and keep your officers aware of the bylaws that apply to them and do that training? We have had this come up before: How do you ensure that, because there are variations?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you, senator, for your question. It looks like it is for me again.
Some of what we are doing is done at the divisional, provincial or territorial levels because there are so many communities we are talking about, and the band bylaws or First Nation laws will differ from community to community. A lot of that involves direct engagement with the detachment commander or the members who are either under a community tripartite agreement, or CTA, or through the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, or FNIPP, to engage with communities and understand those band bylaws.
Chief Superintendent Pillay and I have been attempting, for the last six months, to actually get a national policy that provides clear, concise direction, because, as I think everybody is aware, RCMP members move from community to community, and we need to have that clear understanding.
There has been some work in relation to community profiles and communication protocols within communities that hope to leverage the relationship between community and members when they arrive in the community. However, we need to make sure we have a clear and consistent national policy that can then be adopted and nuanced for each individual community so that we understand what the band bylaws and First Nation laws are, specific to that community, because they may change year to year, council to council.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you for being here.
The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, in the other place, produced a report in 2021 that I’m sure you’re aware of. They studied community frustrations over the RCMP decision to stop enforcing bylaws post-2014 amendments to the Indian Act. Those understandable frustrations have led us to this bill here today.
From your understanding, the RCMP halted bylaw enforcement over concerns that they are no longer subject to mandatory review for Charter compliance. Would that be accurate?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you for your question, senator.
I can’t speak to exactly what happened at the time, but I can speak to the recent direction that we have provided to our members in relation to the fact that all band bylaws are to be deemed presumptively valid.
We don’t want a young constable on the front line trying to determine, “Is this valid? Is this not valid?” That’s not their role. That would be the responsibility of those engagement pieces. We have provided clear direction that all band bylaws are presumptively valid. Outside of full enforcement of those laws, there are still things that we can do from an investigative standpoint, or in those provinces that have enabling provincial legislation or the work that is being done in Manitoba, they could take it a step further. I’m not sure if that answers your question.
Senator Yussuff: Not directly, but you said this now twice. Manitoba has done something very different as a province in regard to First Nation bylaws. What is so different about what the Manitoba government has done in regard to First Nation bylaws that makes it much easier for you to enforce in Manitoba, which you’re not doing in other places? Does that get to the question?
Ms. Ebert: Thank you, senator. I’m going to hand it over to Chief Superintendent Pillay. He will be able to answer that.
Mr. Pillay: We recently did a national survey to take scope of what is working and what is not. What we found in Manitoba is they very much are not waiting for headquarters to catch up. They are making community-level agreements and they have prosecutorial support. That seems to be the real difference maker in that environment.
When we asked the other divisions what the problems are, they are not having problems accessing what the most current bylaw is or things like this. They are citing a lack of prosecutorial support. They’re citing being unclear on issues of validity, Charter compliance and matters of authority. So everyone is trying to enforce; there is definitely a willingness out there. This is the point of a national policy — to clarify this issue of our statutory authority to enforce.
Senator Yussuff: So coming back to this bill, this bill doesn’t tell First Nations what bylaws to pass. This bill is simply about asking the RCMP to enforce the bylaws. The folks who are passing the bylaws, how do they get to the fact where it’s Charter-compliant? Because they have to have some kind of a service or a mechanism to access that if they are drafting the bylaws, because it’s important if the bylaw is passed that their citizens have the same rights as we do, as Canadians, because the Charter is the Charter.
Mr. Pillay: That is a question that is best for First Nation band councils, and it is different everywhere. We do know this. From our consultations, we understand that many band councils engage legal advice in the creation of bylaws. Just as problems are very different in all the different communities, the bylaws are different, and they are intended to tailor to the specific problems of that community.
Senator Hay: Thank you for your work that you do and for being here today.
I want to drill down a little bit into what I’ll call operationalization of Bill S-223. I suspect that proper funding and coordination with the police services serving the communities will be essential or are essential. Is there proper funding to bring this bill forward? Will new funding be required?
This has been asked and answered, yet I’m going to ask it again: How does coordination with police services work regionally and nationally? I’m thinking about funding here in the context of this bill.
Ms. Ebert: Thank you, senator. I’ll attempt to answer your question the best way I can.
I’m not sure, in relation to funding specific to this bill, how much may or may not be required because, as I stated, I don’t think this bill gives us exactly what we need. Depending on the level of training that may be required, depending on what a new bill may say, that’s something that would need to be absorbed within the RCMP to share that. We have existing agreements to provide policing services to a number of communities across the country. There has been debate largely about whether or not those resources are sufficient, and I think that’s a different question outside of the needs of this bill.
I can make a request to those who might know a little more and provide you something in writing if there is something more articulate that I can provide.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to say that when the First Nations draft bylaws, they always use a lawyer. The lawyers do the drafting. When the minister did the allowance of band bylaws, it wasn’t the minister, it was lawyers. So is the RCMP saying that the lawyers hired by First Nations are deficient? Because it’s lawyers doing this, and they do their work.
When we look at 2014, the RCMP enacted the bylaws of the Minister of Indigenous Services. After 2014, the government put legislation in to give First Nations governments the authority to do the same thing, to give them broader powers. What is different from 2014? How did it work prior? And after 2014, with the RCMP enforcing bylaws, why didn’t they continue — they were already doing that, and some of these are the same laws.
Ms. Ebert: Thank you, senator. What has occurred over the past decade or more is inconsistent application of enforcement of band bylaws across the country. That’s something that we can all likely agree on.
What has happened in recent years is trying to seek clarity on what the authorities are and are not. There are a number of court cases that currently exist on this very topic, challenging some of what has been done.
So this is why we have been seeking to have that national authority and policy so that we can provide that direction. We as the RCMP police coast to coast to coast, and we need to ensure that a band in Kamloops and a band in Conne River are not being treated differently. They should be treated equally, and that requires national authority and national policy to do that.
I’m going to turn it over to Chief Superintendent Pillay to see if he wants to add to that.
Mr. Pillay: Thank you, senator. We have heard this question raised a couple of times now: What happened in 2014? We have rigorously interrogated this issue ourselves. There was no formal direction. This was not an official policy position of the RCMP. Public Safety has issued a report on this, and there is no definitive reason. All we can essentially come to understand is that there was confusion around prosecutorial responsibilities and statutory authorities, and this is what we’re now trying to tackle.
Senator McCallum: What happened before that? They just took the government at their word, and they just enforced the laws?
Mr. Pillay: My understanding is that, prior to 2014, there was more enforcement and more prosecution of these same offences.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum, I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the witnesses.
My question concerns what happens next. The bill relates to the inclusion of First Nations laws within the RCMP’s mandate. Let us imagine a scenario in which you enforce this law. When you prosecute someone, what happens next? Do you think that, at present, the justice system is capable of taking over this new responsibility that you have? For example, when a detainee appears in court following their arrest, do the courts understand the elements of First Nations laws to follow up on your actions?
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Assistant Commissioner, you said there is recognition about what this bill is attempting to do, but you don’t think the bill is going to accomplish that because of the complexity of what we need to fix. If we can’t achieve the objective that the bill is attempting to do, then what is the point of passing this legislation?
Ms. Ebert: I’ll take that question. There was a statement made earlier — I’m not sure if it was Mr. Anderson — and he talked about how this legislation would demonstrate the will of Parliament for the RCMP to enforce First Nation laws. I don’t discount that portion of what the intent of this law is. I think that it would bring that to the forefront.
What I do have concerns with is that it doesn’t give the legislative legal authority for us to efficiently enforce, as we have said before. This would go into your question, senator, in relation to — after First Nations laws are added to the mandate. We already have the duty, as the RCMP, to enforce and support First Nations communities in relation to community safety as well as their laws.
The justice system and the legislation that is available to us are currently not sufficient to allow us to enforce some band bylaws.
Now, not in every circumstance for a band bylaw are we going to be required to arrest someone. Where we get our powers of authority is from the Criminal Code and, as my colleague Chief Superintendent Pillay said, similar to municipal bylaws and provincial laws, it’s the ability to do a part of the investigation coercively. So, when I stop you, you do need to provide me your name, you do need to answer my questions, and we can sufficiently move on from that.
Without an enabling piece of legislation that helps us do that, if we were to enforce a removal bylaw and attempt to stop somebody, our understanding currently — and I say currently — is that we do not have the ability for a warrantless arrest. So, if I tell someone, “I want you to stop; I want you to provide me your name or ID,” the extent of what I can do if they don’t want to comply is limited. The enabling legislation that we are seeking would give us the same powers that we have to deal with summary conviction offences that do exist.
If we then proceed to whether it is a ticketing regime done by the First Nations, or whether or not it is a court process in relation to a First Nation law, the prosecutorial piece would need to be further aligned and aware of what our powers are as well as have enough resources to follow through on those. That is currently one of the complaints that we receive from First Nations communities about the lack of prosecutions. It is also where some of the confusion comes from, from some of our members in the field, about, “How can I do anything if nobody is willing to prosecute it?” This is what we’re seeking to clarify. Is there anything I missed there?
Mr. Pillay: I would make one final point. We’re talking about amendments to the RCMP Act that clarify the duty. That does draw attention of everyone subject to the RCMP Act that First Nations laws should be understood uniquely, not just lumped into the laws of Canada.
But what we are working on, and what our obstruction is with respect to a national policy, is the authority to enforce, the technical authority, and where we derive our authority from. It’s the difference between the duty and specific enforcement authorities.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of our time with our witnesses. Thank you so much, Ms. Soper, Assistant Commissioner Jennifer Ebert and Chief Superintendent Simon Pillay, for taking the time to meet with us today as we listen and learn and deliberate this important legislation.
For this next panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming, from the Lands Advisory Board, Chief Robert Louie, Chair, by video conference; and Andrew Beynon, Director, Land Code Governance. Joining us also by video conference, from Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, is Chief Garrison Settee, Grand Chief; and Michael Anderson, Policing and Public Safety Advisor, Office of the Grand Chief. From the Indigenous Bar Association, we have Melinda Moch; and, finally, from the Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service, we have Keith Blake, Chief of Police.
Welcome and thank you all for joining us today. We are going to do our best to hear from all of you. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, and we will begin with Chief Louie. Please proceed when you are ready.
Robert Louie, Chair, First Nations Lands Advisory Board: Good afternoon, honourable senators and members of the committee. Thank you for having me as a witness in my capacity as chairman of the Lands Advisory Board.
The committee should already have my full written statement in hand. I will give some opening remarks and a brief summary, and then answer any questions you may have when you are ready.
First, the Lands Advisory Board is fully supportive of Bill S-223. We greatly appreciate Senator McCallum’s leadership in bringing forward this private member’s bill to address the enforcement crisis First Nations are facing today. We also acknowledge the leadership of the senators considering Bill S-223, as well as MKO and Grand Chief Settee, whose efforts are helping advance meaningful change for First Nations in the province of Manitoba.
My core message from the Lands Advisory Board is the board already has a recognized law-making authority in place, but we lack the practical policing, prosecution and justice capacity required to enforce our First Nation laws. The result is a serious enforcement gap that has to be remedied. We have been lobbying government for years. The enforcement gap is inextricably linked to community safety, environmental protection, trespass, infrastructure and economic development.
First Nations already have many laws in place, but we need to have our laws enforced by the RCMP, along with the proper machinery of justice, prosecution and courts for proper enforcement to occur.
I’m pleased to say some progress has been made over the past several years. Some land codes have been successfully pursued, with private prosecutions of trespass offences in provincial courts, but it has come with a high financial cost. The K’ómoks First Nation in British Columbia has taken a further step by appointing a justice of the peace with authority to adjudicate alleged violations of First Nations laws. Again, this comes at a high cost.
Some provincially supported initiatives have occurred in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and New Brunswick, which have also added to the progress. Bill S-223 can build on this progress by providing an important clarification of the law. It can confirm the RCMP’s authority to enforce summary conviction offences under First Nation laws, and this can be parallel with a function it already performs routinely in relation to the laws of federal, provincial and other governments. This would help in reducing the cost and concerns of First Nations in having their laws enforced. The more routine it becomes, the lower the cost of governing and the more effective enforcement becomes.
In terms of RCMP resource pressures, we recognize the RCMP faces significant resource pressures. However, effective enforcement of First Nation laws can help prevent lower-level offences from escalating into more serious crimes; that’s where you have large, expensive costs.
First Nations have the basic right to be protected under the Charter, and this must include enforcement as a basic right. First Nations recognize the need for cost-effective enforcement, and this could be done using practical tools, such as ticketing, which can address less serious offences without unnecessarily burdening the courts. This would save both time and money.
The bottom line is that the Parliament of Canada has already recognized First Nation law-making capacity, but the vacuum of enforcement remains. Enforcement cannot be treated as an issue for some future date.
Land-code First Nation laws are in place now; violations are occurring now; First Nations are acting now to prevent harm, to protect their lands and to uphold the safety and well-being of their communities. Enforcement must be lawful, fair and proportionate, with access to appropriate court processes.
We have five recommendations we are asking Canada to consider. First is leadership. We believe Justice Canada should be the ministry to lead this, to coordinate the federal departments to work with the provincial partners responsible for the administration of justice.
Second, on prosecutions, Justice Canada should make federal prosecutors available, support a recognized First Nations prosecution service, along with training, and/or fund provincial prosecutors as a last resort.
Third is police authority. There must be legislative change that expressly confirms the authority of the RCMP, together with any First Nation police services, to enforce First Nation laws with standard police protection in place. Bill S-223 supports this. Public safety demands this as a mandate.
Fourth is community justice. We recommend a broader justice model that includes prevention, community justice, collaborative social services and wellness. It should not be just about arrests, apprehension and criminal charges. Effective enforcement should support these approaches and provide a dependable response when violations require formal actions.
Fifth is funding. There must be dedicated funding in place for resource policing, prosecutions and First Nations enforcement personnel. A clear federal lead will help ensure this is put in place.
My closing message is that Bill S-223 should be passed with undue haste and be matched with leadership, prosecution capacity and dedicated funding. First Nations and good governance deserve this. Lim’limpt for listening to me.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now hear from Grand Chief Settee. The floor is yours.
Garrison Settee, Grand Chief, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc.: Good afternoon, everyone. It is an honour to be here with the honourable senators. I want to acknowledge Senator McCallum and her work on this particular file. And, of course, Chief Louie, thank you for being such a good partner in working together. Also Chief of Police Blake, from Alberta, it is good to see you here.
On behalf of the more than 72,000 First Nations citizens of the 26 northern Manitoba First Nations affiliated with the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak Inc., which have entered into Treaty No. 4, Treaty No. 5, Treaty No. 6 and Treaty No. 10, MKO is pleased to share our views on Bill S-223, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
The effective enforcement of First Nation laws is a key element of the eight pillars of the MKO Vision of the Elements and Roles of a Whole of Government Response, which can be seen at Tab 3 of the MKO book of documents. The objective and focus of MKO’s whole-of-government response and of our Indigenous Justice Strategy is the wellness and well-being of our citizens and our communities.
Effective enforcement of First Nations laws is essential to self‑determination and self-governance. Effective enforcement of First Nation laws is essential to real deterrence and to the protection of the public safety of our nations.
There must be real-world consequences for behaviours and actions that are not consistent with the principles of First Nation community protocols and norms. These principles, community protocols and norms are drawn from our customary laws. We say, “Our Laws are in our language.” First Nation laws reflect these principles, community protocols and norms.
The MKO justice model is not rooted in enforcement, prosecution and incarceration. Our justice model places restorative justice at the centre to provide optional outcomes of the effective enforcement of summary conviction offences under First Nation laws.
When the Protocol Agreement between the MKO First Nations, the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was broadened — effective July 1, 2023 — to include the enforcement of all Indian Act bylaws, there had been no enforcement by RCMP of First Nation laws in Manitoba for the previous 30 years. You can see this version of the protocol in Tab 2 of the documents.
There is an urgent and pressing need and public interest to enhance public safety and security in First Nations by ensuring the effective and collaborative enforcement of First Nation laws, including where RCMP is the local policing authority in a First Nation. We urge the committee to report on Bill S-223 to the Senate with approval and on an expedited basis.
MKO has seven key messages. We also want to clarify that Bill S-223, the duty of the RCMP to enforce First Nation laws, will set in motion the need to build the authorities the RCMP is seeking. This is the messaging we have as MKO continues to ensure our communities are protected:
First and foremost, COVID-19 illuminated the enforcement gap. Second, the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act of 2014 created a stranded regime of First Nations laws. Third, the basic enforcement formula is “no enforcement without prosecution.” The link between enforcement and prosecution is why MKO seeks to renew the protocol.
Fourth, the RCMP have de-emphasized commitments to enforce First Nation laws. We are very interested in knowing more about the RCMP’s recent national direction that bylaws are presumptively valid. Those are things that are very important to us.
Fifth, it is important to enact Bill S-223, An Act to amend the RCMP Act. Sixth, it is the Crown’s treaty obligation to ensure the intoxicant laws are strictly enforced. The seventh message is collaborative enforcement by the RCMP of First Nation laws.
Therefore, it is imperative that we enact this amendment so that the Indian Act bylaws have the force and effect of federal regulation and will have the force and effect of federal legislation going into the future.
I’m running out of time, but I just want to say that I hope that we can do this together, because I believe that it is imperative to have these First Nation laws enforced and prosecuted by the RCMP. Ekosi, miigwech, masi cho.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are now going to call on Melinda Moch. The floor is yours.
Melinda Moch, Secretary, Indigenous Bar Association: Tansi. Hello, honourable chair and members of the committee. My name is Melinda Moch. I am a lawyer practising in Manitoba, and I am honoured to appear today on behalf of the Indigenous Bar Association, or IBA, in Canada.
For those who are not aware, the IBA represents Indigenous legal professionals from across the country. Our members bring many different experiences and perspectives to this exact discussion. We work within Canadian law, with Indigenous governments and with Indigenous legal orders. Many of us spend our careers working at the places where those systems meet. Those are the perspectives that I hope to bring to Bill S-223 today.
The IBA welcomes the opportunity that this bIll creates to advance a conversation that has been under way for many years, that conversation being how we move from recognition of Indigenous law-making authority to meaningful operation of that authority.
At the foundation of this discussion are the treaties, the Indian Act, section 35 of the Constitution, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, but, most importantly, the rule of law.
At its basic level, the rule of law means that laws must be capable of operating as laws. In the Manitoba Language Rights reference, it states that:
. . . the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order. . . .
So I ask you: How can maintenance of normative order exist without proper enforcement? Parliament has expressly recognized that First Nation law-making authority and the laws validly enacted under that authority should have a clear and reliable pathway to enforcement. Without that pathway, we create a gap between the existence of the law and its practical effect.
First Nations’ laws relate to First Nations’ lands, the peoples who inhabit those lands, the peoples of the respective 634 First Nations in Canada, and their duly elected government officials. Those governments are not simply stakeholders in the administration of laws; they are the governments that make them.
The rule of law calls on us to ensure that all duly enacted laws are given meaningful effect, including through the institutions responsible for their enforcement. Where an entire category of law is not consistently enforced, it creates that gap that we spoke of between the recognition of law-making authority and the practical implementation. Bill S-223 is an opportunity to help close that gap and to ensure that First Nation laws are supported.
Practically speaking, many First Nations governments are already responsible for the direct delivery of certain programs and essential services in their communities, as they should be. With that responsibility should also come the ability to govern — the ability to enact and enforce the laws that protect their communities. Many of those laws address things that my fellow witnesses have already addressed, which are public safety matters such as traffic, public order, trespass, intoxicants and community safety.
This bill is an integral part of the legal system, with law-making being only one part of a functioning legal system, as this bill would expressly recognize the statutory duties of Canada’s largest law enforcement agency in relation to offences of First Nation laws.
From the IBA’s perspective, Bill S-223 is a fundamental piece of the puzzle. However, it is truly part of something much larger. Effective First Nation laws require a complete justice continuum, in which we already see work being done. First Nations governments are working to update and implement their laws. Provinces such as Manitoba and New Brunswick have already amended provincial legislation to integrate recognition of First Nation laws, and those within the police force are receiving specialized training in working with First Nations. These are all positive steps being taken to close the gap in this relationship.
What we need now is to make sure that the rest of the system is ready to meet that work. For the IBA, this bill is about so much more than enforcement. It is about continuing the evolution of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous laws. It is about supporting First Nations governments and ensuring that when a First Nations community makes a law to protect its peoples, lands and future, there is a justice system prepared to give that law practical effect.
Meegwetch. Thank you all so much. I look forward to your questions later.
The Chair: Thank you. Finally, we will hear from Keith Blake, Chief of Police.
Keith Blake, Chief of Police, Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service: Thank you, chair. D’ata’nastada, sizi Keith Blake at’a, Guyamoha Tosguna.
Honourable members of the committee, I am Keith Blake, Chief of Police of the Tsuut’ina Nation Police Service, or, as our nation members call us, Tosguna, which translated means “the protectors of the Tribe and camp,” “the peacekeepers.” I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of Bill S-223.
First Nation laws may be valid under federal law, yet communities face uncertainty about whether those laws will be enforced. When police decline to act because they are unsure who is responsible for enforcement or prosecution, the result is a significant and serious community safety gap. A law that cannot be applied in practice offers little in terms of safeguards to the community members it is meant to protect.
Honourable Senator McCallum has wisely and previously described to you the consequences of that gap, and I will read that:
First Nations from coast to coast to coast are experiencing a crisis in public safety and well-being, largely driven by an epidemic of addictions that are driven by virtually uncontrolled drug dealing and bootlegging. The failure and refusal of the RCMP to enforce, and the failure and refusal of the PPSC to prosecute . . . are directly contributing to this crisis.
Those are very accurate and troubling concerns. First Nations are working to protect their communities through laws made under authorities such as the Indian Act, the First Nations Land Management Act and self-government arrangements, but when those laws are not consistently enforced, communities are left without a reliable way to address unlawful conduct they have lawfully prohibited.
Bill S-223 offers a focused legislative response, amending the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to clarify the RCMP’s role in enforcing First Nation laws. This is an important initial step toward ensuring that recognized First Nation laws are not disregarded because of uncertainty about who should act.
This is not simply a technical question about policing. It concerns public safety, the rule of law and the ability of First Nations to govern their communities with self-determination. Where a First Nation has enacted a valid law, the Indigenous community should be able to expect that it will be enforced. Now, this bill does not mean that Indigenous laws will now replace Canadian laws, like the Criminal Code of Canada; rather, it calls for governments to recognize and implement complementary Indigenous justice rights in a very meaningful way.
I now want to emphasize the federal government’s steadfast purported commitment to advancing reconciliation, and that is by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; responding to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, or MMIWG; and, finally, implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.
As senators, I believe you have a responsibility to support Bill S-223 because it advances Indigenous self-determination and aligns with the government’s commitment to reconciliation.
I now want to highlight how that obligation will be met by this bill. The bill’s purpose is consistent with UNDRIP. It recognizes Indigenous Peoples’ rights to maintain and strengthen their legal institutions and to develop and administer their own laws and systems of justice.
Bill S-223 aligns with the MMIWG’s Calls for Justice, specifically Call 5.4 and Call 5.5, emphasizing Indigenous jurisdiction and self-determination in matters of safety and justice and the recognition and implementation of Indigenous laws and legal orders. The bill also specifically supports the TRC’s Calls to Action 42 and 50, calling for the recognition and implementation of Indigenous justice systems and support for Indigenous law institutes. All of those acknowledged principles are difficult to realize if First Nation laws are only recognized in theory, but left unenforced in practice.
I would now like to talk about the Tsuut’ina experience, the community whom I so proudly serve. They demonstrate how First Nations can thrive when a comprehensive, culturally grounded, community-led model is supported.
Since the inception of our service in 2004, our officers have and will always enforce Tsuut’ina laws. We understand the importance. Through an agreement with the Province of Alberta, Crown prosecutors handle prosecutions of our laws. An Indigenous provincial court judge adjudicates cases through our Peacemaker Court. By combining enforcement and accountability with peacemaking and community-led support, this approach offers a meaningful alternative to conventional colonial justice.
A recent analysis of this method was done last year. We have determined that the recidivism rate among offenders who participated in peacemaking was less than 3%. Now, I would argue that’s an unmatched example of what Indigenous-led justice can achieve in addressing the significant overrepresentation of Indigenous people in our justice system. It achieves this by offering a culturally grounded, community-based approach focused on accountability, healing and reducing reoffending.
In closing, Bill S-223 cannot solve every public safety challenge or undo the harms of colonialism, but it is a concrete, tangible and necessary step towards closing the enforcement gap, affirming First Nations’ authority and building safer communities. I urge the committee to support Bill S-223 and to study how it can be implemented in a way that is effective, adequately resourced and guided by First Nations.
Siyasgaas. Thank you.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Blake.
We are now going to proceed with questions. Colleagues, our witnesses will be with us until 6:20, but we will try to extend it a little bit. There is some room there.
As always, we will do our best to allow time for each member to ask their questions. If you can be as brief as possible and succinct, that would help.
I will ask the deputy chair first. Senator Ince, would you like to ask the first question?
Senator Ince: Thank you all for being here. A few of the witnesses already touched on where I’m going with this question. In Senator Prosper’s second reading speech, he indicated that he supports studying the bill in committee because we need to hear about the effect that non-enforcement has on First Nations communities.
From your experience, and maybe what you have heard, can you share the impact that non-enforcement of Bill S-223 has on First Nations communities? This is open to anyone. Thank you.
Mr. Settee: Good afternoon. I have a brief response, senator. In my experience, during the pandemic, when our Chiefs and leaders wanted support from the RCMP, they felt totally abandoned by the RCMP when it came to enforcing these laws. It was a dire situation. They wanted the RCMP to be able to support them, but they were not able to support them. That left a huge void in support and also a feeling that they were abandoned.
That’s why we push this so strongly, because of that feeling of being abandoned by the RCMP. It’s not a good place to be. We want to ensure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Blake: If I may, I have had the honour and opportunity to speak to so many First Nations across this country. MKO last week came out to our service. Again, Grand Chief, thank you for your support.
I can tell you that, in these discussions about policing and enforcement of justice, it’s probably the number one concern within our First Nations communities that there is no means to enforce, to adjudicate and to prosecute. So they feel, as the Grand Chief has said, abandoned. They feel like the laws that will protect their community are not there to do so. Again, who knows better how to keep the community safe than community members?
I can tell you it’s a huge, massive issue across this country. Once you do have enforcement, as we do in our service — and as we do in our community — it does bring out the community’s voice. It is a critical piece of community safety.
Mr. Louie: If I may add to that, I agree with both speakers, Mr. Blake and the Grand Chief. As chairman of the Lands Advisory Board, I work and deal with First Nations right across Canada, from Vancouver Island right through to Newfoundland. I hear the same concerns constantly.
When you have government and you have law-making capacity, how can you be a recognized government without having your laws enforced? It does not make sense. Good governance dictates that.
When First Nation communities pass land codes, in our particular case, community members look to it and expect that there would be a natural enforcement process. If we’re voting for it, it must be good governance. We want good governance in place.
When you have situations, as in Manitoba and other communities, where you have the pandemic and need laws enforced to protect the community’s needs, and all of a sudden the RCMP comes to you and says, “I’m sorry, people, we cannot enforce. We have no authority, no clarity of jurisdiction to enforce.” How do you think that makes the community members feel? They look to the Chief and council saying, “I thought we had self-government. I thought Canada recognized our law‑making authority. What do we have if we don’t have enforcement?” It is very simple. That’s the same message across Canada, from First Nation to First Nation to First Nation. All kinds of examples can be given.
In K’ómoks, on Vancouver Island, for example, when they had a serious trespass issue, non-natives and non-members living on the lands, causing havoc, refusing to leave, a tenancy thing, they asked and called upon the RCMP. The RCMP refused and said, “Well, we don’t have authority.” It did go to court. The courts did eventually rule that, “Yes, you must enforce this.”
But it took that type of messaging that had to go through the courts, and then it went through lengthy prosecutions and high costs. That’s not fair. That’s not being consistent with the Charter. I don’t think that’s fair to any government to have communities face that dilemma.
That’s why we have been calling upon Canada for many years now to get this straightened out. This bill here, Bill S-223, can help clarify that requirement very clearly. That’s our opinion.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you for your insightful testimonies.
I imagine you have heard the RCMP representatives who gave evidence earlier. Their explanations regarding jurisdiction, enforcement and the desire for more consistent guidelines across the country seemed rather vague. I’d like you to tell us about that.
I’ll give you my opinion: I didn’t agree with them. I agree with you that, first and foremost, this requires expertise. Secondly, law enforcement officers may or may not have the discretion to apply a regulation depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, it doesn’t surprise me that this isn’t consistent from one place to another; that falls within your remit. One regulation may be applicable and appropriate in one area, while another may be applicable in a different area. We see this with local authorities; they don’t all have the same rules. It doesn’t surprise me.
I have given you my opinion; you are not obliged to agree with it, but I would like you to tell us about the testimonies from the RCMP representatives, in particular that of Mr. Moch.
Mr. Beynon: I entirely agree with your reaction. That is precisely the problem.
As other witnesses have pointed out, there is a whole justice system in place, and we need to consider various solutions to strengthen First Nations’ capacity to enforce the laws they adopt.
In my view, this brings us back to the fundamental question: Why not move forward with Bill C-223 in order to clarify precisely the scope of the RCMP’s authority? This would contribute directly to a better administration of justice. Of course, there are other issues, notably those relating to training or partnership agreements. However, this still does not answer the main question: Why not clearly enshrine in law that the RCMP has the necessary authority to enforce these laws?
[English]
Mr. Settee: If I may interject briefly, I think that it is incumbent and has always been incumbent on the RCMP to enforce the laws of Canada, which include First Nation laws. It is in a manner that is consistent with the will of Parliament. The Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act also clarifies that so that the responsibility and the duty to enforce have always been there. It’s just that it has to be very clearly defined as to what those capabilities and authorities are. It’s already there. We’re just solidifying this process.
Mr. Louie: Honourable senator, I wholeheartedly agree. I’m glad you have that opinion because that opinion is supported and shared by me and, I believe, many. We have to start somewhere. This is the place to start.
There has to be a lot of work and a lot of follow-up, of course. Each of the provincial jurisdictions will need to be consulted. Each of the provincial and territorial jurisdictions will need to make sure they have proper prosecution in place, make it affordable, make it precise and have a ticketing process that works. Some provinces have started that.
In Saskatchewan, they worked out a pilot program to support community safety officers. Manitoba has taken action by enacting changes to the provincial offence procedure law. In Alberta, they have taken measures to enforce the Indian Act bylaws. New Brunswick has added language to its Provincial Offences Procedure Act to clarify that provincial procedures be applied to First Nation bylaws and laws. So what you have indicated is absolutely correct. It’s 100% what is needed, and the sooner we can get the enforcement provisions in place, with this amendment, it’s going to move the needle so much further in the right direction.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief.
Senator Cardozo: A couple of questions, if you don’t mind, just to really educate me on some of the issues involved here. Maybe I’ll ask Ms. Moch, since you work with IBA across the country. Can you tell us more about the process by which First Nations law is developed and to what extent it might differ from one nation to another?
My other question is for Chief Blake. You mentioned dealing with drugs. As I understand it, First Nations law would cover non-criminal law. Do you think it should cover criminal law, or does the current process allow you to deal with the issues that you have to deal with? Ms. Moch, I’ll ask you to go first.
Ms. Moch: Thank you for that question. For the general outline of how a First Nation would proceed to have a bylaw enacted, it’s a pseudo-legislative process but within the nation itself. Depending on the seriousness or the level of the law that is being enacted, it would go through the band council. It likely goes to member engagement, and in order for it to back fully enacted, what it actually has to do is it has to go through an advertisement stage in the First Nations Gazette. That’s the recognized national publicly accessible avenue for First Nations community members and other folks across Canada to access those bylaws.
Then there is a time frame for folks to dissent or create an area where they ask for amendments to that bylaw. If it does not have any response, then it would proceed to be enacted. It meets Part II of the First Nations Gazette, which means it’s an active bylaw fully accessible to the public, to anyone who enters that First Nation and to anyone who lives in that community. In other words, if I am a non-community member and I’m driving through a First Nation, I have accessibility in order to take a look at the First Nations Gazette to see if there are any specific traffic enforcement bylaws that might be relevant to that First Nation.
The process is, as I said, pseudo-legislative. Within that smaller community, it has the ability then for folks to say that they have an issue or a problem with it, and to ask for amendments.
I believe it was addressed earlier that typically what happens is there are lawyers or teams of lawyers who are being asked to draft and work with communities on these bylaws. I have worked with communities for seven-plus years on implementing some of their bylaws. The larger bylaws obviously take much longer.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. Police Chief Blake?
Mr. Blake: Thank you, senator. I view this as a complementary situation where we do enforce the Canadian Criminal Code and we also have powers and authorities that the nation is provided in things like band council resolutions for banishment or for trespassing. When you look at the drug epidemic that we’re seeing across this country, it’s truly focused in areas where these drug dealers and organized crime are trying to move away from the major centres, because that’s where the focus of police is. That’s where the resources are to surveil these individuals. So they are coming onto our territories.
We have the Criminal Code at our disposal. We have all the native or First Nations legislation, so when someone comes in to take advantage of our vulnerable population, we have means and methods for charging, but we also have means and methods to ensure they do not come back into our community to continue to prey on our vulnerable. So I see them as very complementary.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, did you wish to add something?
Mr. Anderson: I did. In terms of the law-making process, one of the first laws that we built with our protocol was an intoxicant bylaw, a framework bylaw. It’s basically a one-size-fits-all bylaw for all 23 of our law-making First Nations, with the adjustments, the changes for their specific circumstances — the name of the First Nation, the reserve lands it applies to and so on.
Under section 85.1, that is a community bylaw. It has to be approved by a majority of the electors at a community meeting called expressly for that purpose. And the process that we follow in rolling these out is our Chiefs and councils deliver door to door a copy of the draft bylaw 30 days before the community meeting, and then when the community meeting takes place, there is legal counsel from the Public Interest Law Centre and, typically, myself to explain what the bylaw means. There is vigorous debate in the community, and when they enact this prohibition, it’s a community law.
It’s interesting because the last enactments were prosecutions of an intoxicant prohibition that was dealt with by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in 1996 in a case called R. v. Campbell. When the court upheld the Charter validity of the Indian Act provision creating the bylaw, as well as the bylaw of the Moose Lake Band, now the Mosakahiken Cree Nation, the court observed that this is a community law and that it should be given deference by both police and the courts because the people had approved it.
There are similar court cases about seizures of drugs incidental to a search for alcohol: R. v. Winter and R. v. Atlookan in Ontario. We have built our whole model about the court’s view of the importance of the enforcement of intoxicant prohibitions to protect public safety. Where I’m going back to is community law. The people voted in as an elected council can’t enact an intoxicants bylaw on their own. They have a community meeting. The community approves it, and then the council enacts it and posts it on the First Nations Gazette. It’s quite a process —
The Chair: I’m going to have to finish right there, but thank you.
Mr. Anderson: I’m done, senator. Thank you.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: I realize we’re short on time. If I may, Chief Settee, I’m struck by the fact that, in 2023, the MKO, RCMP and PPSC Protocol deals with questions about the validity or Charter compliance of bylaws before enforcement and prosecution. Clearly, you took some steps that have made a fundamental difference in regard to enforcing First Nation laws in your community.
Could you share with us not only what the Protocol has taught you but also how the enforcement mechanism from that protocol has worked since you put it in place in 2023?
Mr. Settee: I think our leadership and communities have felt empowered and that they are able to exercise their sovereign right to establish laws in their First Nation that will be respected by law enforcement. That is a huge deal for us because we felt that our leaders were stripped of their authority and power. Now, this validates their authority to govern their First Nations and to dictate how their First Nations should be governed, with the help and support of the police service that is at their disposal, so that really was empowering.
Senator Yussuff: The Public Prosecution Service of Canada clearly is the interlocutor in all of this. Have their cooperation and support been integral to the effectiveness of the work that you have done in the protocol?
Mr. Settee: We have had tremendous support from all the people in the province. We have been working with our partners — Public Safety Canada, Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the RCMP in Manitoba. We have been able to establish a relationship with them and an understanding that this needs to happen, so it has been a very meaningful exercise to be able to work together, because it needed to be done.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question is for Chief Settee.
Bill S-223 gives the RCMP an explicit role in enforcing First Nations laws. You spoke about the restorative justice process in place in your communities. What collaborative mechanisms are needed to ensure that the implementation of Bill S-223 with the RCMP respects the autonomy of the various First Nations communities?
[English]
Mr. Settee: First, we need this bill to be passed, and that will set in motion all the things that need to happen. That’s the bottom line. That’s what we need.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I have a question for Mr. Beynon.
You may not have the answer. I would ask you to look at the French and English versions of the bill. In the French version, the term “First Nations legislative text” is used, but in the singular. Does this have a different implication than in the English version, where it is used in the plural?
Mr. Beynon: I do not believe there is a problem with the plural, but, if possible, we will reply to you in writing.
Senator Youance: Very good. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: This brings us to the end of our time with our witnesses. Thank you so much to our witnesses for taking the time to meet with us today, some once and some twice.
Senators, we’re going to proceed first with our round table. This was designed to share experiences from our committee members that you have had since we met in June that are related to the portfolio and the work of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee. At this time, a few of us will have a few minutes each to catch us all up.
Senator Yussuff: I will start because I have been on the committee for quite a bit of time, so I feel a bit old. I’m not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.
First, it has been consistent on this committee that, regardless of who has come here over time, I find it to be one of the most collaborative committees that I have been on. I think that’s the uniqueness of the senators who have been on the committee. There has been a general open-mindedness and a sense of collaboration, even at times when we have had difficult issues to process. What has been consistent is that even when we’ve dealt with difficulties, the committee has always remained very united in its efforts.
In the time that I have been here, we have produced some very important work that —
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt you, but I wanted to clarify that this is part of our public hearings; we are not in camera. I forgot to mention that. I apologize.
Senator Yussuff: I would say the same thing publicly.
The Chair: There was no reason, but I just forgot this was a continued part of our evening.
Senator Yussuff: The committee has produced some important studies. Some have taken a bit longer, and some have been shorter. One on veterans’ affairs who have come back to this committee on the issue on psychedelics is a good example. We have a problem in this country where veterans come back from deployments or tours and they are severely damaged. PTSD has been a consistent thing that we have heard that our veterans struggle with. We produced an important study that said the government should look at new forms of treatment to try and assist with that. To a large extent, I think other countries and provinces are now moving forward. I think there are studies at the federal level they are financing.
The most recent one, which is significant, was the Arctic study — a significant study and ahead of its time — before all of the spending that is now happening on defence and security. Arctic security has become a really significant issue for the government. Also, in the context of understanding — if you build infrastructure, what does that mean for First Nations or Indigenous communities? Do they have dual use? What is the benefit for them? That study was done with a lot of effort. We went up to the North. We participated and met with people and saw it first-hand. It has made a significant contribution to the country’s security debate.
Regarding the parliamentary work we do with the rigour we apply to legislation, the committee has produced some significant — some not without controversy, no question, but I think it has provided a sense of respect the committee has earned in our system.
I will end on the study on defence procurement. We just had a bill that is going to get adopted that will finesse how the government is going to approach this. We wanted to start the study to say, ”Hey, can we do better? Can we look at how we can diversify defence procurement, hearing from SMEs and others who want to be part of the process?” We will finish that study shortly and conclude with our recommendations.
My point is it has come out of the collaborative effort on the committee, and it is no one senator taking ownership, except we all work in a very diligent way to show — let’s try to achieve our best. As a matter of fact, I think that proposal might have come from Senator Carignan, if I remember. I think he was the one who first suggested it, and the rest of us got behind the effort.
For the time I have been here, I came to this committee mostly not by choice. I didn’t select it as my choice. I was “voluntold.” Tony Dean came to me and said, “You are going to be on SECD. I’m not asking; I’m telling you.” I said, “I don’t want to be on that committee.” He said, “You will learn something, trust me.” I have to say, humbly, I have learned the most being on this committee, and I have enjoyed it the most. That does not mean that I don’t enjoy other committees, but I have equally enjoyed the friendships that I have built on the committee with colleagues of like mind.
Yes, we have a tight schedule from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and sometimes it’s not easy, but the reality is that it is one day. It is done after Monday, and you have got a chance to do other things throughout the week. I think, to a large extent, for the five years plus I have been here, I have benefited the most by being on this committee, and I think it is because of the hard work, the collaborativeness and the sheer degree of respect that we show each other. We have become friends. I didn’t know Senator Carignan before I got on the committee. One day, we went to a bar and drank a bottle of wine and shared stories — this is not a secret, but we became friends out of a process of understanding each other, understanding where we came from, but also learning about how we can better do the work that we are trying to do on behalf of Canadians. I will stop there.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Those are definitely some good reflections that are heartfelt.
Senator Hay: What a great idea to do this round table. My nickname could be Senator Chatty Cathy, so I will try and curb that. Oh, yes, well, my colleague here was a bit more than two minutes. I want to say that I am fairly new to this committee, and what Senator Yussuff said about collaboration — it was intimidating coming to this table, National Security and Defence, and the collaboration was just clear and authentic. The leadership of the chair at the time, which was you, Senator Yussuff, was welcoming, and you were, in a second, on a phone call, and then the gauntlet passed to our current chair. We are in good company here.
I will report on what the mission was, which was what we did over the summer as it relates to this particular committee. I have three things I would like to share with everybody. I had the privilege of joining the Arctic fact-finding mission of the Sub‑Committee on Transatlantic Relations, or PCTR, with a NATO delegation.
I would first like to speak about Iqaluit. It was the second time I was in Iqaluit. The first time I went, I was there with regard to a youth and mental health delegation, and I went not knowing what to expect. I left Iqaluit as a different human because of the impact. I went again this past summer, and that same feeling — the achingly raw beauty, the spirit of the Inuit — was extraordinarily profound. Again, I was different upon leaving. I take these opportunities as a senator with great humbleness.
Onto the actual mission, I was joined by Senator Cardozo, Senator Patterson and Senator Dasko, recently retired. I think that was it. It was a 35-member delegation of 15 allied countries, led by Julie Dzerowicz and Cheryl Gallant. We met with federal, territorial and Inuit leaders, which was extraordinary. In Ottawa, the minister, David McGuinty, briefed us all on Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.
In Iqaluit, we visited NORAD facilities, Canadian Rangers, Coast Guard operations, aerial surveillance assets and the deep-sea port. What was really important is the understanding by the nations that were there that Arctic security requires a whole-of-society approach, with dual-use infrastructure, which benefits both defence and northern communities.
Here is the essential thing that came from that mission, in my opinion: It emphasized the essential role of Inuit knowledge in effective Arctic operations. I would go further and say that without Inuit knowledge and leadership, Arctic security is severely compromised, if not non-existent. That was that particular mission.
The other two are slightly different. I met with the NATO Youth Canada council this summer to discuss opportunities on how we can strengthen youth engagement and youth voice as far as Canada’s NATO relationships are concerned. I have tagged Senator Cardozo and Senator Deacon to meet with this group. They are extraordinary. There were young people from other nations who also joined this particular meeting.
Finally, I went with my mom, and we toured the Diefenbunker Museum. I suggest we all should take a tour of the Diefenbunker. It was truly eye-opening — the depth of engineering, thought and leadership that happened many years ago, and it also highlighted today’s world. Here we are, not quite the same situation, but . . .
The Chair: Really interesting, diverse and yet sort of complementary experiences. Wow. Thank you for sharing that.
Senator Hay: You should do a tour to Diefenbunker if you haven’t been.
Senator Cardozo: I want to add to what Senator Hay said in terms of having this kind of a round table. I think it is really important. A lot of us either travel abroad or have delegations from other countries that come here. We meet with our counterparts, and we really need to do something with all that information that we gather. Being able to share it here is one good opportunity.
It also gives us an opportunity to share with the public that when we are travelling, we are travelling on behalf of Canada. We’re learning interesting things, making contacts, and the more we can share that with each other, the better.
Three quick things. First, on the event that Senator Hay mentioned, two additional reflections that I have. One is that while we were really interested to learn so much more about the North, it was fun to see that the Europeans were just super excited to come to the Canadian North and learn about it, both in terms of meeting people from the North — a number of wonderful Inuit leaders came and joined us — and in terms of the issues around defence and NATO and NORAD and that kind of stuff. They found that very interesting.
The other thing I always find when we meet with Europeans is that they have a different perspective on Europe and Russia than we do. We see it as something there, and I think, generally speaking, North Americans think there will be peace one day, and everything will go back to normal. There is a deep sense in Europe that this is urgent and permanent; Russia will carry on. It is deeper, and it is a threat for many countries along the front line with Russia, but the threat goes through Europe. I find that meeting with them, we remember how urgent and dire the situation is. It is not something that is far away and doesn’t concern us; it does concern us.
Second, I will mention I was at the Canada-U.S. meeting in Edmonton, which is a meeting of five states and five provinces and territories in the northwest of the continent. What I found most useful was meeting counterparts. We had several bilateral meetings — and I think bilateral meetings are just excellent, and we should do them as much as possible, where we just take half an hour as an aside and find a little room and meet with people. I found the meetings with Democrats to be courteous and friendly. I found the meetings with all the Republicans to be extremely courteous and friendly, too, to my surprise. I thought they would be a bit more aggressive with us, but, indeed, they were generally very cooperative and wanting to wait and work our way through this period. There was really a sense that they all understood the need for us to be working together.
The last thing I will mention — and this is a bit of an advertisement — is that one of the people I met was Chris Kane. He is a member of Parliament from Scotland. He was here with the Commonwealth a while back, and I have met him a couple of other times since then. We are starting a podcast in a couple of weeks where we will be talking about issues of our two countries, informing each other about both things that are similar and things that are different. One of the first things we are going to talk about is being situated in a place where we have a major neighbour beside us — for us, it is, of course, the United States, but for them, it is Europe. Europe is not that friendly to them, and so there are interesting tensions there among them.
The idea, partly, came from a very well-known podcast in Britain called “The Rest Is Politics,” and I don’t think we will be quite as popular as them, but I went to see their live show in London while I was there on holiday, and one of the things that struck me with them, as well as a number of the people we met in Europe — and this not to be political — is there are a lot of people that have a lot of hope in Canada on a global level. There is a real sense that Prime Minister Carney has struck a tone that a lot of other countries — a lot of our counterparts — look to us for.
It is an interesting meeting when we meet our counterparts, and they all know the Davos speech. They have all listened to it, and they have listened to a couple of the other speeches, and they see him as a major world leader in the free world. That means that all of us, I think, are reminded that we live in really interesting, dangerous and unpredictable times. To the extent that we can be strong and predictable, other countries are looking to us for leadership as they look for leadership among themselves.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. It was good to share one of those trips with you.
Senator White: I will be very quick. I’m relatively new to this committee, just probably two meetings before Senator Hay, and I am enjoying the committee. I came here because next to Finance, it was one of the areas that I knew nothing about. I wanted to learn.
This past spring, myself, along with Senator Duncan and Senator McNair, met with Telesat. We came from the perspective of connectivity in the North, security and sovereignty. It was a great face-to-face meeting, but they invited us to do a site visit to their control room.
What they are doing is they are launching a low Earth orbit satellite constellation, which will be really important for residents in the North. They are launching it in December from the SpaceX launch pad, which is the only place. We went and did a site visit in July, here in Ottawa. I would highly recommend it. It was a fascinating afternoon, and it is hard to believe you can walk along Queen Street and go in this building, and all these things are there. It was great. It was an excellent visit. My staff can give you the contact of the person if anyone else wants to do it.
Another thing is that I met up with a consultant. He runs a strategic advisory firm. He is the CEO of TMAG Global. He does a lot of work with strategic partnerships in defence and security, and he invited us to do a site visit — “us” being the committee — of an armoured vehicle company located in the Greater Toronto Area, in the North York area. He said if we were willing or wanted to, he could facilitate it. We just need to provide him with ample dates and times that we could do it.
That was my work on National Security and Defence, and it was fun, and I hope we can do some site visits.
The Chair: That is great. Thank you very much for sharing that.
As I listen, I’m just proud. I’m proud of the opportunities. I know that we can be critiqued on some of our travel choices and expenses, but I think that some of the things that we have been able to do and come in and just touch base with them are good reminders.
I have a couple of things, just briefly. Some of them you don’t look for, and some of them land in your phone.
NATO had their big meetings, as you probably know, overseas during the first week of July. And what happened through connections on this committee was that they will have an industrial — at NATO, you see a really formal room with heads of state, but they also have a back room, and in that back room are the guys who are running the businesses. They are the ones that are making the engines happen. They’re the CEOs of industries related to security and defence.
What was really interesting is that I was able to support and help two of these folks who had, all of a sudden, at the last minute, been called to be guest CEOs of Mr. Carney and be over there. They didn’t know what to expect and linking and networks.
We had some really great calls. Those came out of folks who — I will bring this up again — were witnesses here. Just the chance to take that extra step pushed my learning a lot, and to learn what it meant from the industrial leaders being at NATO and then what their expectations were and what their learning was coming back, that was a really interesting early July.
Then I was with Senator Cardozo at the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER, summit. It really is taking that west side of Canada and going down into the United States, plus many others. Those are 200 businesses. There are high-net-yield American businesses there to deal, and there are high-net-yield Canadian businesses to deal.
You wouldn’t know — we do know — we had Ambassador Hoekstra there, too. It was kind of an unusual celebration in the morning, but he was, in the four times we’ve seen him, this was the time when he said, “Look, we may think differently, but we still have to collaborate, and we still have to work together.” Now, he celebrated that by having American shot glasses with Canadian whisky to toast the conference. It was a funny thing that he had learned from somebody in Saskatchewan. So there is the ambassador with shot glasses with Canadian whisky at nine o’clock in the morning. Remember that, right? It was an interesting way to build our team.
There were a lot of defence meetings there, and from the language that sort of evolved for me over the summer, whether I met in Edmonton for that or, two weeks later, in Medicine Hat. I was at our military base there in Medicine Hat in a place called Suffield, which is 50 kilometres from Medicine Hat, meeting with the military, meeting and listening: What are your issues? What is the status of this?
The one thing about the Edmonton visit and their military base is it is called the South Alberta Light Horse, and there is a story of this South Alberta Light Horse armoury, military academy — you name it. Very steep. They gave me two 2-inch books to take home on it. But just imagine — and Medicine Hat is an interesting place — the population doubling. So it was 10,000 in 1943, and it doubled in 1944, with 10,000 mostly German prisoners of war. They ran out of room in Europe. They ran out of room everywhere else, and so they came here. The German Nazi leaders led parts of the barracks, and, during the day, they went out and worked in the farmers’ fields. Clay is big out there, and there are four or five key businesses that they all worked in and came back at the end of the day, and they contributed to the economy. And a number of those families wanted to stay and did stay in Canada afterwards. It was just really interesting, the cycle.
And then Suffield, outside of Edmonton, was — I would call it — more of our test centre for Canadian defence products like drones and small crafts. I certainly had another opportunity — I feel like I’m becoming a bit of a drone demonstration groupie. I don’t know what the term is, but it was very interesting learning.
There were different opportunities like that. But the other thing, too, over the summer that I would recommend to you is the opportunity — Bob Rae, as you know, we all really enjoy listening to him. He’s very esteemed for the work he has done. He is very good at speaking on Canada. We met on this in August. He has just recently published a book called Reclaiming Canadian Sovereignty in a Ruptured World. With all the challenges we’re looking at, but also in recognition of history and the impacts, it’s a read that I would also highly recommend to members of the committee when you have a free spot on your night table and some free brain space.
Two words I heard all summer were “retention” and “recruitment.” They would come up in whatever settings we were in. “Arctic sovereignty” was the third. I would think those are three things that we care a lot about on National Security and Defence. We can talk, and we can articulate what we’re trying to learn and do and move to action in procurement in Arctic sovereignty and recruitment and retention. That also felt like a bit of a circle in the summertime.
That’s it for me. We finished that.
Is there anything else? Senator Ince?
Senator Ince: My apologies. I forgot. I had two interesting visits this summer. One was with a satellite company in Nova Scotia called Galaxia. They already have very small satellites up there to monitor shipping. What is on the ships? It goes right down into everything that is on the ships. They really would like to speak to us if we have the time to bring them in, but I think it was quite interesting.
I also attended NATO Association of Canada’s policy paper launch on Canada’s infrastructure. It was really interesting to hear their discussion. Their main policy recommendations were to modernize Canada’s National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure, adopt an integrated whole-of-society approach to that for our security, and improve public preparedness and awareness. It was held at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto. A lot of people were there from the military and the private sector. It was wonderful to hear their recommendations and suggestions. I can get us that white paper if you’re interested in it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That is very interesting.
You just reminded me to bounce back to Senator Youance because lots of things are going on. You talked about the Montreal airport. I was fascinated by some of the things you said when I was out west. You talked about the regional airports and the impact on the military because some of the airports are closing. Some of them are diversifying into some really interesting defence settings. You just reminded me of that.
Certainly, there is lots on the go and no lack thereof. It’s our own accountability to share the kinds of things we’re doing as it connects to this, so thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)