THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 20, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 10:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.
Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler. I’m a senator from Manitoba and deputy chair of this committee.
First, I will have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Senior: Hello, everyone. Senator Paulette Senior from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good afternoon. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
Senator Arnold: Good afternoon. Dawn Arnold, also from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory and traditional homeland of the Métis in Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Joining us today in the room, we have a delegation from Campaign 2000, Leila Sarangi, and from the National Advisory Council on Poverty, Children’s Specialist, Marie Christian, and from Citizens for Public Justice, Natalie Appleyard. Welcome to SOCI.
Today we continue our study of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada. Joining us today, for the first panel, we welcome in person from the Manitoba Métis Federation, David Chartrand, President, National Government of the Red River Métis, and by video conference, from First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission, Richard Gray, Social Services Manager.
Thank you both for joining us today. You each have five minutes for opening remarks, followed by questions from committee members.
The floor is yours, Mr. Chartrand.
David Chartrand, President, National Government of the Red River Métis, Manitoba Métis Federation: Thank you. Let me start by congratulating the Senate and others who are trying to make changes and raise the issues of children and youth and the challenges they face in this country.
Good morning, senators. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about Red River Métis perceptions of Bill S-212, the National Strategy for Children and Youth Act.
This bill asserts that an ideal childhood is one where every Canadian child has timely access to health care; economic security and opportunity to learn and thrive; safety in their community and online; equality regardless of race or background; and respect and voice in the decisions affecting them.
The three main areas to be addressed include child poverty, children and youth health crisis, and emerging threats from artificial intelligence, or AI.
Senators, Canada does require a national strategy to address these issues, however, as with previous legislation proposing to establish a national strategy, it does not offer a clear pathway to meet its stated objectives. Firstly, the legislation makes no mention of distinctions-based approaches for Indigenous Peoples, in particular, a Red River Métis strategy. Unfortunately, it provides for Indigenous organizations who are not government representatives of section 35 rights holders and takes a pan‑Indigenous approach to delivery of programs and services. It refers to Jordan’s Principle which applies only to First Nations children and youth but excludes Red River Métis. It also refers to the Inuit Child First Initiative, which also does not include us.
Any legislation that aims to improve the lives of Red River Métis children must take a holistic view of a child’s well-being. Our government has decades of experience in delivering child and family services that focus on preventative care. We understand that the family unit must be cared for and supported for children to thrive and to prevent apprehension. However, we are still waiting for Canada to fulfill its legal and financial obligations to us through the former Bill C-92. As a result, we have laid off social workers — over 130 by now — who serve our Métis families.
Sadly, Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples, known as UPIP, has also been cancelled. In fact, we gave $350 to every athlete or child who went into recreation. We supported 2,453 kids last year. That $350 might be an insignificant amount to many families, but, for us, it is everything for a kid. It meant so much to families.
The sports facilities in our rural communities are also underserved and struggling. In fact, we have very few sports facilities in our communities. Our children and youth deserve the opportunity to develop their physical abilities, to build their confidence and have relationship-building experiences that come from participating in team sports. Look at the success of our early learning and childcare legislation for families and their children. The Manitoba Métis Federation, known as MMF, has applied distinct Red River Métis programs to serve our families in this capacity, and the results speak for themselves. We are very, very successful.
It is only by taking a holistic and culturally appropriate approach to building clear pathways to improve the lives of Red River Métis children and youth that the legislation will achieve its objectives. Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chartrand.
Mr. Gray, your five minutes.
Richard Gray, Social Services Manager, First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission: [Indigenous language spoken]
All my relations, senators, my name is Richard Gray from the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission. Our regional chief, Chief Francis Verreault-Paul, sends his regrets. I’m here to present on his behalf.
I would like to bring special attention, first and foremost, to the strategy. Clarifications are needed to ensure the full recognition and respect of First Nations’ collective cultural and linguistic rights. The bill’s intentions are great; however, we acknowledge the important amendments that we propose, first and foremost, that uphold the rights of First Nations children and youth and reaffirm Indigenous People’s self-determination in any national strategy or policy.
For explicit recognition of First Nations’ rights for children and youth, the bill’s preamble should explicitly recognize the rights of First Nations children and Inuit and Métis children and youth to grow up in a culturally safe environment rooted in their culture and language, respecting such rights that would be consistent with the purpose of Indigenous Languages Act in Bill C-92, as well as the rights set out in UNDRIP, specifically Articles 7, 8, 13, 14 and 22.
We also would like to see definitions of the terms “children and youth” for better understanding of the scope of application of the bill, notably clause 2. It is important to include a clear definition of “First Nations children and youth” in order to fully recognize their distinct rights and reflect their specific realities. This clarification is essential to ensure that the strategy is implemented in a respectful and appropriate manner.
Regarding the consultations, Article 4, paragraph 3(a), we reiterate that First Nations insist that any consultation involving their children and youth must be conducted through their governing bodies. This approach is essential to ensure appropriate supervision, adequate support and safety of children and youth.
Regarding paragraph 3(b), several ministers are missing from the list of ministers to be consulted, notably including Indigenous Services Canada, the minister for children, families and learning sector, as well as Employment and Social Development Canada, particularly for the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care programs, known as IELCC. These departments play key roles in issues affecting Indigenous children and youth.
We insist that the legislation specify the ministers’ obligations to consult and cooperate fully with Indigenous representatives in keeping with Canada’s responsibilities under UNDRIP and the UNDRIP Act. The scope and depth of the consultation and cooperation must be in proportion to the potential impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests, following sections 5 and 6 of the UNDRIP Act as well as the Interim guide for Officials on how to assess consistency with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The consultation and cooperation process must recognize all individuals and groups representing First Nations, rather than being limited to national organizations. First Nations governing bodies hold these rights and must have the authority to decide which organizations they officially recognize both politically and technically.
Regarding time frames for developing the strategy and assessment, we believe that the deadlines in clauses 5 and 6 for progress reports and for tabling the final strategy are quite ambitious.
We recommend reviewing the proposed 24 months to develop the strategy which we see as insufficient to ensure genuine consultation and cooperation with all Indigenous organizations and governments concerned.
First Nations should be fully involved in the five-year assessment of the strategy.
We recommend there be a provision added for an independent review, similar to section 49 of the Indigenous Languages Act.
In conclusion, we are fully committed to collaborate constructively on a national strategy that honours First Nations rights, cultures and realities. This responsibility lies both to you and us.
The federal government has a moral duty to fulfill its responsibilities. Together we can ensure meaningful recognition and lasting impact. Respect, recognition and actions must guide us.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, both, for your opening remarks.
We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, you will have five minutes for your question and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or all witnesses.
Senator Moodie: Thank you. The question I wish to ask relates to the consultations.
When I went through a process that led to creating this bill, we did a series of consultations with youth groups on this bill. They were clear that their communities should be the master of their own sovereignty, particularly as it comes to matters that affect Indigenous children.
When you look at a process that might come out of a bill such as this, where a strategy was now worked on by the federal government, how could this strategy complement the work your communities are already doing in this space? What more can this bill do to ensure that Indigenous children are included as their own sovereign group?
Mr. Chartrand: Let me say this: I have been a president for 28 years. I have been pushing agenda issues in all sectors of social programs for my people trying to find what will and could work, and what is needed.
I find a challenge and concern when you have a broad statement of consultation, meaning not from you but from the bureaucracy when they get their hands on it. It could be a nightmare for us and end up being where they could talk to anybody at any time when the liability of the responsibility lies with my government to be responsible back to our people.
When we look at the youth programs you speak of, even in our Métis villages — we have hundreds of villages — we have nothing. We have no programs.
The education system that has programs through the schools, that is gone. They have moved away from sports and recreation. That proactivity you are trying to drive to get youth proactive, unifying themselves, working together as teams — whether in baseball, hockey or any field — that is all wiped out. There is nothing that exists out there.
In talking about how do you make change, first, it will definitely come through a distinctions-based process. How do you measure it? If you are going to invest money into services, whether it works or doesn’t, you need to know who you are investing with. How is it transitioning change in that village, community or people?
You do not have a distinctions-based approach in here. We have been showing success after success through a distinctions-based approach that has commenced itself in the last ten years in Canada. Without it, you heard my colleague saying the same thing about a distinctions-based approach. We have seen that it works. We have seen it be successful, but you do not have it here. It is not one of the demands.
I would encourage Senate to look at that, tighten it up before it gets out of hand and takes off on its own and becomes a free bird, we will call it, out of the Government of Canada, if they adopt it, pass it through.
We think these changes would make a significant change for us, for the future.
Mr. Gray: We support a First Nations, Inuit, Métis distinctions-based approach.
I wish to add supplemental information to what my colleague had shared. Regarding the ongoing consultation, there is an important consultation that is happening, an engagement happening now with First Nations across the country, and it is related to the tribunal order CHRT 80 where the tribunal ordered that there be a national plan developed regarding how child and family services reform would be addressed.
Since the early fall, First Nations have been working on doing this consultation with First Nations communities across the country in regions to develop this national plan. There are national processes in place that have engaged regions across the country to do this national consultation. It is being done in partnership with the National Children’s Chiefs Commission who is doing this in collaboration with the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society and the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN.
If you are looking at developing a national strategy, and including a consultation piece, maybe there is an opportunity here to put in place a national Indigenous advisory committee to support the co-development and implementation of the national strategy. That would be an important element to consider in this approach on moving forward with a national strategy.
Senator Boudreau: For any witness who wishes to address this question, in Bill S-212 we want to develop a national strategy for children and youth that must include the complete elimination of child poverty, which is a lofty objective.
Knowing that, at least one study showed — I am sure there have been others — the rate of child poverty within our Indigenous communities is higher than in non-indigenous children.
I know with Bill S-212, we are not developing the strategy here. It is the mandate of the federal government to do so. I would like to hear if there are any particular ideas or suggestions as to how we can address that. It is a significant gap between non-indigenous and Indigenous children when we are talking about the poverty rate?
What additional initiatives or extra work would have to be done to be able to try and bridge that gap, knowing there is a lack of health, human resources in rural, remote parts of the country?
Mr. Chartrand: Let me start off with this: It is important to look at the challenges, especially in rural areas. I will go to rural for Red River Métis. In our cities we seem to be doing okay. We could be doing better. Poverty still exists. We have chances for employment and jobs.
If you are going to tackle poverty, you have to tackle the opportunity for parents to have jobs, the ability for them to ensure they can provide something.
For the Red River Métis, we have lost all of our traditional economies. We were big in the forest and trapping industries, commercial fisheries and tourism. All of those employment structures have crumbled and gone.
Many of our villages used to have 70% employment. They are down to 70% unemployment.
How do you change a child’s mind when he goes to school and the teacher asks, “Where is your dad”?
“Oh, he is at home sleeping.” Instead of saying, “My dad is out at work.” Because the psyche of that affects the child.
We need to figure out how we create employment. If you check in this country, province — and even with my government — we ask the question. I asked this of the federal and provincial governments: What is your Red River Métis specific economic plan for us? We pay taxes like anyone else. Tell me the economic plan we have to create. We are not building factories there tomorrow. So what will we do differently?
I have been proposing to the province and putting up our money as well to invest in different economic venture opportunities. We have a lot of businesses we run. Right now, the federation has over 876 businesses registered with us in Manitoba. Again, those are small and medium. That is where our success is. We do not have big businesses. We are small and medium.
Economic development is the key. Education for the child is the key to get that economic development in the future. We need to change that cycle in order for us to tackle poverty. If not, poverty will continue to exist and continue to be the hurdle that prevents a chance for the future for the next generation.
Mr. Gray: Thank you for the question. I think an important element to consider in this strategy as well is the silo effect of federal government departments who are doing their own thing without talking with other federal departments. That is an important element that has to be addressed in this strategy. Hopefully, the goal of the strategy — to bring all federal departments who are involved in terms of addressing child well‑being and youth could be addressed in this strategy.
I noticed as well there is a lot of effort in the bill to give updates to the houses once the strategy is completed, but once the strategy is brought forward there is only a review that happens every five years.
What about the possibility of including an annual report on children and youth well-being to give a snapshot of how the strategy is being implemented, but also an annual report that gives a photo of how children and youth are doing?
This way we would be able to look at the strategy, modify it and adjust it accordingly. The national advisory committee I mentioned earlier would be a good opportunity to look at implementation to ensure that distinct Indigenous governing bodies are included in that strategy moving forward. Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to our guests for being here today.
This question is for both of you. I will start with you, President Chartrand. In your opening remarks you spoke about how the bill takes a pan-Indigenous approach, and you have already spoken to this. How can the framework ensure that there is a distinctions-based approach to ensure that the distinct rights of Métis peoples and children are respected?
I think of this in light of the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework that had a distinctions-based approach, and is this something that we could learn from?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for that. That is a good question. There are already structures within government that are in play, and they are working. Housing and early learning child care each have a distinctions-based approach process. There are clear measurables attached to that, whether it is successful or not.
You look at our structure in Manitoba. Early learning and child care will employ over 300 child care workers, and we’ll take on thousands of children into our child care bases. We are building brand-new infrastructure. Remember, we had nothing. We never had child care. This is our first ever as a Métis people to have it. It has really changed the very psyche of the families, where many of our young people have shifted their careers to child care. The distinctions-based approach is a proven success model. It will continue to be a success model if it is given respect.
When I look at your bill, which I have great respect for — I know what you are trying to do — when you have such a vagueness of how we go about passing it on to the government, my fear is how the government thinks.
When you look at our housing, for example, in the past, if we had any housing — and the last time we had houses built was in the 1980s. Now we are building new ones with the new transition. However, we find ourselves in the position where — in the past, CMHC used to tell us how we build our houses, where we build them, who needs them and who can live in them, yet they know nothing about us. Never visited our villages or people. Today, we have one of the most successful housing programs.
Just a quick statement on this, especially on the question of economics. We started a program for first-time homebuyers. Canada shut theirs down. We still have ours. Right now, we have over 1,300 families who bought their houses in four years. Different parties have asked me, “How in the hell did you pull this off?” It has always been there. Our people just need that little bump, that little head start. Now, that is stability. Now a family owns a home that will be passed on when they leave this world, and there will be inheritance for the children in the future, et cetera, or used as collateral for their education in the future. That is distinctions based. If you did not have distinctions based and the CMHC was still controlling us, there is no way in hell we would have ever had this program. Ever.
Senator Greenwood: Mr. Gray, I want to ask you the same question around how the Indigenous Early Learning and Child Care Framework can inform questions around distinctions based. The other piece I would add to this — and I know we may fall into the second round — is around consultation. There are concerns expressed around consulting First Nations children and youth directly without their governing bodies’ prior involvement. I would like to hear you talk about that and talk about what that kind of strategy would look like. If your communities were being consulted, what pieces would need to be in place to ensure that leadership and families and children and youth were informed?
The Deputy Chair: Senator Greenwood, that is an important question, the consultation piece. Can we put that question to second round so both witnesses can answer to the consultation piece? Mr. Gray, if you could speak to the distinctions-based approach that Senator Greenwood asked about.
Mr. Gray: Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Senator Greenwood.
This national strategy has a lot to learn from the early learning child care initiatives and the distinctions-based approaches there. We don’t want a blanket approach or pan-Canadian approach when it comes to looking at developing these strategies regarding child and youth well-being. We reiterate, again, the importance of distinctions-based approaches. There are huge concerns about a national strategy and Indigenous Peoples’ needs, rights and realities being swept into this national strategy and not having their specific and distinct needs addressed.
The national Indigenous organizations as well as the regional Indigenous organizations are quite familiar with these distinctions-based approaches. I mentioned it earlier, the possibility about creating a national advisory committee. I’m hopeful if there is a national advisory committee that would be accepted, it would definitely be made up of the distinctions-based Indigenous representatives who could bring those First Nations cultural notions that have to be respected in the development of the strategy.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here.
My question continues with the consultation piece, trying to figure it out. What we are doing is asking the federal government to develop the strategy. That is the purpose of the bill. This is more like what the framework is that we want to present through this bill.
I am wondering what is best in terms of an approach for the framework. Clearly, the strategy needs a number of pieces in order for it to respond to the various needs of various communities that are Indigenous and non-Indigenous. My question: Is it best to have a parallel process for First Nations, Métis, Inuit communities? Or I think the comment made earlier by Mr. Gray is that there is a need to avoid being swept into the rest of this national strategy. That’s my question. I hear the recommendation of Mr. Gray in terms of the national advisory committee for the strategy, but in terms of the framework, what would be the best approach to utilize? Is it in parallel, or is it part of the national approach?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question. It is a very good point. From our perspective, any consultation that will happen has to go through our government. That’s what we’re elected for, and that’s what we are structured for.
We’ve been around for a long time. Going back right to the 1800s, consultation was a regular component of how we operated our governance. Even with an Indigenous advisory board as recommended by my friend, we would have hesitation about that because our political structure is completely different than that of First Nations. We have a president selected by the people across the nations. We then have a structure where we have cabinet and officials elected by regions. Those individuals come to a cabinet meeting, and they make decisions for all of the Red River Métis who belong to our nation and our government.
But when you look at the process, it will be vital that it has independency directly to us. Because at the end of the day, who will be held accountable if this program becomes a reality, if Canada does fulfill this bill and follows through with it? Who will check the balance, the resources, the structure, the components of what they are trying to achieve, and what is now being done or is not being done?
If you have a pan-Indigenous situation, you can’t measure anything. For example, there are homeless program strategies in this country. So many people are applying for it. People are stepping over each other all over the place. I haven’t homelessness change. I still see the struggles. Who is accountable? We can see little sprinkles of homelessness funding — that’s us, as a government — but it’s so spread out; you have no measurables to see if that program is successful or not.
If we are going to invest taxpayers’ dollars, we have to make sure that, at the end of the day, it’s going through a process where measurable outcomes and objectives are attached to it. In order to do that, it has to be done through our governments. We didn’t structure ourselves for several hundred years now as a people and a government if it’s not going to be respected. If you say, “I’m going to go to the community,” who will you talk to in the community? Procurement is an example in this country. It works except it is failing because nobody is checking. Anyone can self-declare as Indigenous and take advantage of the procurement program, and it did happen. People were stealing money from Canada.
When you start looking at it, it is very clear. Our structures, with First Nations and Métis — and Inuit, I can’t speak for them; they will speak for themselves — but they have worked diligently to have a check and balance on who is accountable and who is not accountable.
I would commend you if you pushed a parallel, push it directly to a distinctions-based approach. You come to our government; we’re responsible and we will be accountable back for the resources that are transferred to us.
Mr. Gray: Thank you for the question, senator. I absolutely agree that there should be something specific to Indigenous in this national strategy, a component specific for them. That would be a welcome consideration. It would help prevent the concern or address the concern I shared earlier about First Nations being swept into this national strategy and having difficulty finding themselves in terms of how they would see themselves benefitting from this national strategy. I would definitely support that in the framework.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Senator Muggli: Thank you so much to our witnesses for being with us today. I certainly appreciate it.
My question is related to the TRC Calls to Action, in particular Calls 33 and 34 regarding fetal alcohol spectrum. I start with Mr. Gray. Can this bill in part address these Calls to Action and how?
Mr. Gray: That is a very good question. I said earlier that there are concerns about siloed approaches by way of government programs and services in addressing Indigenous needs. The question you raised about fetal alcohol syndrome concerns are definitely at the forefront in terms of addressing needs in First Nations communities regarding addictions and mental health.
I would add the problem of street gangs infiltrating and controlling First Nations communities with regard to pushing drugs and violence because the communities have a lack of public security. The concerns you raise are becoming more and ever-present in terms of negative outcomes in that regard.
We need, in the strategy, the ability to look at breaking down silos and making sure that all federal departments work together collaboratively with the Indigenous governing bodies through a distinctions-based approach. If we can finally get these federal government programs to work in collaboration with First Nations, that would be a great step and a great approach, in my opinion.
You mentioned this problem. I talked earlier about producing an annual report on children and youth well-being, as a suggestion. Right now, it’s not stated as something we’re all looking at in terms of the national scope. If we put this on the radar and start looking at goals to address this particular problem in the strategy with all of the departments working together with First Nations’ governing bodies, we could make some serious headway. Thank you.
Senator Muggli: My mind goes to the intersection with the youth criminal justice system as one of those silos in this scenario as well.
Is there time for Mr. Chartrand to respond?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you, Madam Chair. Go, Riders, go.
Let me say this. First, the TRC doesn’t really apply to the Métis. It was structured, more or less, for First Nation entities because they were more impacted by the residential schools than us. However, there are massive issues of criminality, gangs, drugs, in our communities.
Yesterday, I spoke before this committee referencing that we have no policing, no constables, nothing, in Métis villages because we are still caught in this responsibility issue of whether federal Canada is responsible or not, even though we won the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Daniels v. Canada which says that Canada is responsible. We are still fighting that fight, but at the end of the day, it’s a serious issue.
Even on the missing Indigenous women, we, as our own government; put up $1 million. We put up a reward for $10,000 each to find missing Indigenous women and boys and girls. It’s our own money that we earn through our businesses.
At the end of the day, a crisis is going on right now. It’s destroying families and communities. This bill will hopefully interact with the justice attempts over there. That’s what my colleague is talking about. Don’t work in silos. Bring the two sides together somehow, in some fashion, because it is a serious issue.
On the Sagkeeng First Nation, the day before yesterday, one individual was shot by RCMP. When you start looking at what’s going on in the communities, there are some hard times.
There are a lot of gangs coming in, taking advantage of the opportunities. I have seen them doing it right outside the windows of my office with the homeless people during COVID. I am sorry, Madam Chair, but may I just add a little extra? They were applying for COVID support on behalf of the homeless people living in tents. Then when the cheques were there, they would come and collect from them. They were giving them drugs and shooting them up with needles. As soon as they walk in, you can tell the drug dealers right away, the way they are dressed, the way they are walking into the tents and the way they are coming out. So there are very sophisticated systems out there, and we have no tools to fight back right now.
Senator McPhedran: President Chartrand, please excuse my delay in arriving. I welcome you and your colleagues. It was good to see you at the Louis Riel event.
I’d like to hear more, please, about the process for coming through your government in order to reach youth in a consultation process. Can you give us a better, maybe a wider, description of how that would work? First of all, the request would go to your government, but then what would happen in terms of reaching out to Métis youth and children to be part of this process?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you very much for the question. In the context of my government and its structure, we actually have local executives in every community. We have a voice in every community of our structure. From there, we have the political entities that come up through our regions. We have, for example, seven regions in the province of Manitoba. We have one of the biggest assemblies in the country. Over 3,000 people come to our annual assembly to give us directions and inputs, including youth. Youth is a big priority for us right now. We have been putting a big emphasis on that because we are concerned about the gangs and so forth. We are fighting now with the provincial government on the schools. The schools have taken recreation out of the spectrum of giving it a credit of some sort as considered to be part of the education. That’s a missing link for the youth. If you go into the villages today, you will see baseball diamonds by the school, but nobody is playing baseball. No soccer. Nothing is happening because the school doesn’t believe in that any more — the education departments.
It does worry us, because unifying the young people today, getting them to work together, builds their character for the future. We have two programs. The Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples program, or UPIP, for example, has been cancelled, and that’s a damn good program. It helped them with their equipment — hockey, baseball, golf — whatever sport they decide to choose. It gives a proactive approach. That program is being cancelled.
Now we only have the asset program, under the employment insurance plan, and we have a youth partnership for jobs, sport and activity. Even in the summer, we employ hundreds of youths. We partner with several hundred Métis businesses that take on some of the young people in the community. But they have to go back to school. You can’t just take the job and not go to school. We push them to go back to school. Our success rate is very high — the best in Canada right now, if you look at the data.
If you look at it overall, we have a truly encompassing system where our youth are involved, our elders are involved and the villages are involved in the connection of giving input. Where our struggle lies is that the programs we truly finally achieved are getting cut now. That gives us a lot of concern. That’s why, when I see the bill, I support the bill, but I see cloudy areas in it. Those cloudy areas could end up destroying a perfect attempt to do something. We have a crisis out there. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Jordan’s Principle — you have it in your bill — we are not entitled to that.
Ask yourself the question. My grandson has the identical health conditions as Jordan, whom the Jordan’s Principle was named after. My grandson has the same conditions: He will never walk; he will never talk; he eats through a tube. He is 16 years old now, and he was supposed to die at the age of one. My daughter took him out of hospital. She took the responsibility herself. The doctors said, don’t do it, he won’t live past one. He lived and then the doctors said he won’t live past five. He is now 16 years old. He will never walk or talk, and has the same conditions as the Jordan whom the principle is named after, but he is not in that program. I shake my head. There are others like my grandson in the villages, but we are not in the programs because we happen to be Métis.
We take these issues very seriously. I personally came here to give my position on this. I thank you for your question. The youth are truly involved in our system. We believe that the youth are clearly telling us the same thing. There is a crisis and a very serious concern. Something has to be done. This bill? Will it make change? I pray to God it will. It will make a change if there are better recommendations coming forth. A distinctions-based approach has to be there, because if they are not, don’t ask me because it won’t work for me. If it is distinctions-based, I guarantee it will work.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for being here and helping us today with this bill.
I have a question for you, President Chartrand. You mentioned breaking the cycle. Of course, we understand why it is so important to break that cycle, but I wanted to hear a little more on that. If I were to ask what the top three priorities would be, coming from the angle of Indigenous youth, would that make a big difference in breaking that cycle you were talking about? What would that look like?
Mr. Chartrand: Firstly, it would be strengthening the family. That’s fundamentally the most important part right now that we see. As I said, in the urban centres, our parents are doing okay. They are getting jobs, getting education and moving ahead. The younger generation is also successful in getting jobs. Some of them aren’t, and those are the ones we worry about getting into gangs. But in the rural towns, we have a high unemployment ratio now. So the opportunity for the kids to get a vision, so that they too can become whatever they want to be, is really diminished and taken down from them, because there’s nothing that shows them.
The school, for example, doesn’t do these things I am talking about, which we are pushing hard for. We have no say in the provincial education system with the schools. From that perspective, it really draws a very serious issue. Youth need a vision to become a police officer, a lawyer, a nurse — whatever they want to be, it can be there. But in order to do that, you have to give them that vision and you have to show them it can be done. We are limited in the context. As I just said, Canada is cancelling UPIP. That program was helping. The programs that are there to give some incentive and some light to our upcoming generations are just giving up. When they give up, you will have a problem later because you will be arguing later about how we can afford them in jails or on social welfare because they are not working.
My concern back in our own communities is that I don’t want our kids to become complacent that it is okay to live on social welfare or other money. They can’t. They have to have a better vision. That’s why we have youth employment programs, and they are very successful.
At the end of the day, the youth need to know that they can do what others that they see on TV or on the internet are doing. Kids are very smart.
Another example is that we don’t have computer programs in our schools. AI is part of your bill here. We don’t have computer programs in our towns. We don’t have fibre optics in our villages, but that will be the future. How will they get a job? They are learning for themselves on their little phones, but they are not learning to write programs in the IT world.
If we are going to be serious, we have to be serious in the context of giving equality to everybody. They said that everybody will be connected in this country. The governments have said that over and over. I can take you to village after village throughout. I commend the First Nations because they are getting fibre optics in theirs because Canada is taking responsibility for that. But nobody is taking responsibility for us. I’m not looking for charity. I pay taxes like everybody else. My kids have a right to it, and my family has a right to it. From it my perspective, if there is to be a chance in hell, Canada has to put a program into place that looks at this.
This program — as I said, I came here all the way here for this particular purpose — is something that could give this government the push it needs, or the demand that has to come forward, because if you don’t do it now, you will be paying a bigger bill in the future. I am worried about gangs. Today they are popping regular prescription pills now, like candy. They are breaking into the homes of elders and taking their prescription drugs, and the elders are scared to tell on them because what if they come back to their house?
There are crises happening that you don’t see here, which are happening in my back yard, and there is no one with a program or an attempt to do something except me and my government. We have a big problem out there. The pillars for me are these: Give them an education. Give them an opportunity. Give them the vision to be what they want to be, but give them the tools to get there.
Senator Arnold: Thank you, both, for being here today and educating us, particularly, on the distinctions-based approach. I’ve found the conversation really helpful.
To you, Mr. Chartrand. I was really impressed by what you talked about from a housing perspective. Can you tell us how that came about? Why was that so successful?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for that because I’m proud of that. It is my people’s vision, not David Chartrand. My people gave me the direction to do that. The Métis throughout history have always been an entrepreneurial people, since the first war in this country, which was the battle of free trade in 1816. We’ve always been an economically driven people.
When you look at it, where we’ve had a shortfall is that, after the disbursement of our ability to own our own land and our own houses were chased away from that position in Manitoba and moved West, we became a landless people.
With no disrespect to non-Indigenous society, they got their head start because they did build their homes and their lands and their farms and so forth. Their kids had a damn good opportunity to get a better chance. So we are behind that. We are, say, 50 or 100 years behind, and we are just coming back into the circle of things.
I’ve always believed that if you have a fundamentally strong home, you will have a strong family. From that perspective, our people told us, “Look, my kids are working, but they just can’t save enough. By the time they spend money on their kids for their sports or anything that they need to do, they just can’t save to buy a house.” So they said, “If you would assist us in giving us a down payment and maybe the legal fees to conclude the contract, then maybe we can see it.”
We said “let’s try it,” and put a program in place. We gave so much money for a down payment, I think $18,000, and it took off like wildfire. Since then we have over 1,300 — probably about 1,400 families who have now bought their houses, including lots of kids in their families. Those kids are going to have a head start. Those kids have an asset base now. They have something to be proud of. They have their own homes. We’re doing that not just in Winnipeg; it is all across our homeland.
When you look at that program, it gives you the incentive that it can be done. We also have a program called the Home Enhancement Loan Program, or HELP. But that is to repair houses that can still be used for living for another 20, 30 years. That program is very successful.
Not only that, we also contract and hire Métis contractors. We have many of them, about 30 contracting companies fixing and building homes. We have homes for seniors. We’re the cheapest in the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada for our seniors. We run some of the best homes you can see. Not to make money. If you want to come visit our homes, I will show you a layout. We have some of the best programs. Not only are they the cheapest in the country, but we also do their snow, cut their grass and give them a little garden at their houses.
It is so well respected, but this is a strategy because we had control. If Canada had a say over it, it would never be what it is today. We had the control. Our people told us what they needed, how we can get there and that they would be liable and responsible at the same time. That program — Canada has tried it. They failed. They shut theirs down. We have ours, and it is still working, and working solid and strong. I can’t tell you of the pride and the tears shed, people cutting the ribbon as first‑time homebuyers. It has changed their lives. Everybody is working now to a brighter future. As I told the senator here, people need to have hope and to see it can happen. Change is happening.
Look at the population. I have the same population as a First Nation, about 130,000 people I am responsible for. When you start looking at it, at the end of the day, this new home pride is really changing the psyche of the family, big time. Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Good to see President Chartrand again. I think we first met about 20 years ago, and it is obvious that you continue to be just as passionate now as you were when you first started in your position.
I don’t know if this has as much to do with the bill, but you made a comment with regard to school ground facilities, ball fields and soccer pitches, that are no longer being used. Is it because the school boards have stepped back? Teachers are restricted? Maybe because of liability issues. Does it present an opportunity for community development, investment in community leadership, coaching? If those fields remain but they are not being used, how can we unlock that kind of potential?
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question. In fact, several months ago, I had a discussion with the premier of my province. Even though they have a baseball diamond situated at the school, because that’s where they built them, the school is preventing us from using it. We had our own resources. We said we’ll buy the baseball diamonds, the baseballs, the gloves, and we said, “Let’s get baseball back,” because a lot of communities I come from are big baseball communities. And no, no, no.
We’re not allowed to use the gym. They have the basketball courts outside, and we’re not allowed to use those either. So we’ve got to build our own. We have to build our own infrastructure, which is crazy because they’re not using it. As I said, the curriculum process of the school boards and school institutions has moved away from sports and recreation and gone to just straight, more or less, education and literature on the other side of it.
We are still trying to drive this home, but because it is run by school boards independently, we have to convince the school boards. A lot of them — for example, the gymnasium. We say, “We’ll create a program for the evening so kids are busy and they can continue to be proactive. These are your students anyway, but MMF will pay for it.” They say, “No, no, we don’t want the wear and tear on our floor.” Well, that’s what a gymnasium is going to do. I’m not joking. This is not made-up stuff. This is real. So that gives a real difficulty for us to push the opportunity.
I will give you another example. I started a fiddle program because I have a big fear. Métis music cannot be written; it is all by sound. So we started a fiddle program. My executive director brought it to my attention about 20 years ago. We didn’t have much money, and he said, “Start a fiddle program. I’m scared our fiddlers are dying out, so our culture will die. A piece of us will die.”
I said okay, but I said, “I don’t see young kids grabbing fiddles. I just don’t see it. They will want guitars; they will want drums; they will want rock ‘n’ roll kinds of stuff.” But he convinced me. We didn’t have much money. We bought about 100 fiddles and T-shirts and some sashes. We sat down with one of the schools and said, “Look, if we pay for a fiddler instructor, an Elder, to come in here to teach the kids, would you accept it? Even if it is in the afternoon or in the evening?” One of the schools took a chance. They said, “Okay, let’s do it,” and it took off like wildfire. We have now bought several thousand fiddles. We have kids playing all over, making their own music now.
I asked myself, “How in the hell did that work?” Then I figured it out. I watched the enthusiasm on the faces of families. The kids get on the stage in the little tiny halls in their villages, and in comes the grandparents, the parents, the aunties, the uncles, to come and admire their relative playing on that stage. So it is just the admiration. She asked the question earlier, how do you do it? Well, you instill the pride to that young person. Now, as I said, at 14, they’re selling their CDs. Well, they’ve gone from that now to selling new technology, but they were selling their CDs years ago as a methodology of showing entrepreneurship.
We need a big discussion between our federal ministers and provincial ministers where there has to be a reaction of where they come together. Our governments and First Nations also have revenue. Bring them in, and let’s put that into the opportunity that schools must allow us to use the system if we pay for it.
Senator Cuzner: It is a stranded asset if you can’t get access.
Mr. Chartrand: One hundred percent. That asset was paid for by taxpayers, including myself, when they built the diamonds and the basketball courts and gymnasiums and so forth that we are not allowed to use.
We could start anew, but that would cost too much money to try to start it all over and then compete with the school. If the federal government takes it seriously like we do, I think we would see change and positive change.
The Deputy Chair: We have come to the end of the first panel. We do not have time for a second round, but I would like each of the senators on second round to read your question aloud into the record, and we can invite our witnesses to provide a written answer afterwards. Is that acceptable, witnesses?
Mr. Chartrand: Madam senator, I have four staff behind me. They’d better be taking notes on this. We will write down responses, I assure you of that.
Mr. Gray: Yes. That’s not an issue. We will support that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: I have two questions. I will read them both very quickly. I am very interested in what I’m hearing around process, recommendations for process change. And I would like to understand a little bit more about two aspects on process. What we are hearing is, do we need a separate, parallel process for your communities, distinctions-based process, and where you see this fitting within the bill as a recommendation. I’m seeing under considerations. Is that where you see it?
Second question is around reporting. I love the idea of the annual report on the status of children’s well-being, and I wonder where you see that resting and residing within the context of the bill. Will it be on the review and reporting?
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Moodie.
The next question to be read aloud is from Senator Greenwood.
Mr. Chartrand: Will we get a copy of the questions?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, we can do that.
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: My questions have to do with indicators, assessment and outcomes.
I wish to hear your advice on assessment outcomes and indicators that would be acceptable to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and please speak from your perspectives.
I am looking for assessment, outcomes and indicators that would be acceptable to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and how could these measures be developed and assessed? In the bill itself, it speaks to international standards. I want to know what would be acceptable First Nation standards, Métis standards, Inuit standards. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The next question to be read aloud is from Senator McPhedran.
Senator McPhedran: President Chartrand, we know there is an Inuit child strategy. We know we have Jordan’s Principle. You have addressed a significant gap.
May I ask whether your government is working on a Métis child strategy or plan already? If so, can we get a better understanding of how this bill, if it were to become law, could be helpful in that? If you could please, in responding to that, also address youth suicide. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: The next question to be read aloud is from Senator Petitclerc.
Senator Petitclerc: If I may, from both witnesses, I wish to get a perspective on a strategy will spontaneously want to tackle poverty, of course, substance use, mental health and suicide. You have touched on that, President Chartrand.
How important will it be for a strategy to also talk about access to sport and recreation, as you have discussed? If both of you could get back to us on that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to everyone. For our witnesses, our last meeting for witness testimony is next Wednesday. We will go into clause-by-clause next Thursday.
We will share with you how to review the questions and submit your answers. If we could receive concise answers by Monday, November 24, that would be much appreciated.
Senators, this brings us to the end of the first panel. I wish to thank Mr. Chartrand and Mr. Gray for their testimony today.
For our next panel, we welcome by video conference, from It Gets Better Canada, Omid Razavi, Executive Director; and joining us in person, Alfred Burgesson, former Youth Council member and Mamadou Diallo, Youth Advisor.
Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today. You will have five minutes each for your opening statement, followed by questions from committee members.
Mr. Razavi, the floor is yours.
Omid Razavi, Executive Director, It Gets Better Canada: Thank you, chair, deputy chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for inviting me to appear and speak today.
My name is Omid Razavi, my pronouns are he/him, and I am the Executive Director of It Gets Better Canada. Today, we are the only national charity focused solely on 2SLGBTQI+ youth in Canada.
At It Gets Better Canada, we understand the vital impact of listening to youth and amplifying their voices. Our charity’s strongest asset is our extensive network of 2SLGBTQI+ youth from across the country who support our programs.
Our network provides us with an on-the-ground understanding of the barriers queer youth are facing today, and it is no secret that these barriers are increasing.
With over 1.2 million social media impressions in the past year alone, we are seeing an increase in the need for our resources. Our engagement on our social channels, while growing, has been met with increased attacks and online hate. Yet this is a small reflection on the realities and harm 2SLGBTQI+ youth are facing online today.
Recognizing this, we just released our latest resource, GLO, a mobile app designed to empower and safeguard queer youth as they navigate online channels, misinformation and AI. Backed by research and youth community consultations, this app was made possible through federal funding from Women and Gender Equality Canada.
We applaud the committee for recognizing the need to develop a national strategy to support children and youth, as well as the importance of consulting with youth. I am here today representing our youth network and ask that you ensure consultations include the deep nuances within the 2SLGBTQI+ community.
The bill itself does not include any reference to the 2SLGBTQI+ community in Canada; there is merely mention of gender and sexual identity in the preamble. I understand it’s a national strategy for youth, but there is no cookie-cutter solution when factoring in equality differences across communities. The government needs to have specific measures for specific communities; otherwise, it will perpetuate the status quo. I ask that you ensure that any creation of materials or publishing of data is done in collaboration with a diverse set of stakeholder groups across the 2SLGBTQI+ community in Canada.
Moving on, it is important to highlight how the bill makes reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC, and I wanted to recognize some of the key principles that are core to it, starting with non-discrimination. According to the Government of Canada website, the UNCRC principle of non-discrimination is described as follows:
The rights of all children are to be respected without discrimination of any kind. It does not matter their gender; if they are rich or poor; what their religion, ethnicity, or language is; or, whether they have special needs.
Currently in Canada, transgender youth do not have this right. In two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, transgender youth are unable to access the medical care they need. In Alberta, transgender youth are also unable to be referred to with their name and pronouns at school without parental consent, and transgender girls are not allowed to play on girls sporting teams past the age of 12.
These bills clearly are discriminatory in nature. This is supported by the injunction made against Bill 26 on violating Charter rights. If a bill is violating the Charter rights of one specific group intentionally, that group being transgender youth, and it is designed to do so, that is state-sanctioned discrimination. If the Canadian Government wishes to act in accordance with the UNCRC, it must defend transgender youth and their rights to access medicine, dignity and social activity.
Another principle is the right to life and development. This principle is described as follows on the Government of Canada website:
The Convention says that governments should do their best to help children live and grow to be the best they can be.
I want to conclude by sharing thoughts from one our Youth Advisory Committee members, Rowan, an impressive Albertan trans youth:
In my home community, two transgender youth under the age of 18 have died by suicide. A common evidence-based concern is the documented increase in suicide risk for transgender youth when anti-trans policies are even debated. The Trevor Project found in 2024 that an anti-trans bill being introduced can increase the risk of suicide attempts by 70% for trans youth. If a government is supposed to be doing their best to help children live and grow, that means tackling the root cause of suicide risk. As a former suicidal trans youth, I wanted to be able to live as myself without persecution and did not see that as a possibility. I graduated high school before anti-trans legislation took root in this country. I started medically transitioning before it was planted in my province. I could not imagine never seeing those accomplishments as possibilities due to my government.
If this government wishes to act in accordance with the UNCRC, it must protect transgender youth from factors that increase their mortality. This bill must include protections for 2SLGBTQI+ youth, particularly trans youth. I urge the government to act in congruence with the UNCRC. The healthiest ecosystems are the most diverse. If we want our country to thrive, we cannot continue killing its future.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Burgesson, the floor is yours.
Alfred Burgesson, Former Youth Council Member, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me to comment on Bill S-212 today. My perspectives and knowledge on this issue are based upon my own lived experiences. I just turned 29 last week, so I feel I have about one more year to be credible enough to speak on this, but I do really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you, senators, for your important work on this.
My journey advocating on behalf of youth began in high school, and in recent years, I’ve had the opportunity to do so through the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and co-chairing Canada’s first State of Youth report in 2021.
I want to highlight a few things. The first is the importance of this bill. Canada has no unified plan for children and youth today. The exercise we did through the State of the Youth report was a listening exercise but it hasn’t led to any sort of concrete policy in this area.
Now, more than ever, children and youth are facing a precarious future. I have friends and peers who are afraid and don’t want to welcome children into the world we live in today. I find that to be very sad, but much of that is because they are losing hope in a sustainable future. Young people today are experiencing an unsustainable increase in cost of living, whether it is due to formal education, food or housing. There is a lack of meaningful engagement with young people to solve these problems, and this is leading to a deep distrust of the institutions that govern us today.
To restore this hope, I believe a national strategy to address the issues that children and youth care about deeply is required. This national strategy must be co-designed by young people.
I want to share a few lessons from my experience chairing the State of Youth report back in 2021. The report focused on six core themes: truth and reconciliation, environment and climate action, health and wellness, leadership and impact, employment and innovation skills, and learning. The report highlighted that youth demand meaningful action over symbolic gestures, and bold action and accountability toward reconciliation and climate action. Many young people are in a mental health crisis right now. They have inequitable access to health care, and that remains a major barrier for young people. Youth face serious barriers to employment and career development today. Education is becoming increasingly expensive and poorly attached to real‑world skills.
I strongly recommend you read this report. You can find it by searching “Canada State of Youth report” online. It is bold, and it is informed by the views of youth all across the country.
Finally, I will conclude by sharing my views and recommendations for the implementation of this bill. I have reviewed the bill, and I agree with most of the elements of this bill, as noted. I want to share a few measures that I believe should be adopted in this bill, which include incorporating the national State of Youth report and committing to updating that report at least every four years.
I think we need to adopt a more in-depth, meaningful approach to measuring quality of life in Canada. We have a great example out of Nova Scotia through an organization named Engage Nova Scotia. In 2019, they ran a quality of life survey. I was a part of that team, and I am currently on the board of Engage Nova Scotia. I have seen firsthand the potential to gather critical data on citizens. I have a lot of faith in the ability for that data to inform future policy decisions in this country at all levels of government.
We also need to ensure that the federal government, provinces and territories are playing their roles in addressing youth inequities through the establishment of offices of the commissioner of children and youth in the regions.
I don’t claim to have all the answers and neither should the government. However, I do believe it starts by asking the right questions and using the insights from young people to make better decisions for the future. After all, we will inherit the future based off the decisions made today.
I urge this government to support the bill and to ensure that its implementation reflects the voices and realities of young people across this country.
Last, I will share a few youth organizations that I believe should be consulted as this process continues: the Ulnooweg Education Centre in the Mi’kmaw region, the PREP Academy in Halifax that serves African Nova Scotian students and Children First Canada that serves youth across the country.
Thank you for the opportunity.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
The floor is yours, Mr. Diallo.
[Translation]
Mamadou Oury Diallo, Youth Advisor, As an individual: Honourable senators, it is a tremendous honour to speak before you today. When I arrived in Canada 10 years ago, I never imagined I would be speaking before senators. Thank you for this honour, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to your work.
Allow me to open with the words of Nelson Mandela:
There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.
Today, we know that Canada is making significant efforts on behalf of youth and children, but we still lack a coherent national vision to ensure the well-being of children and youth in Canada.
Recent data from Statistics Canada show that young people aged 15 to 24 represent more than 12% of our population, but they have an unemployment rate that is almost twice as high. Nearly 914,000 young people aged 15 to 29 are neither employed nor in school nor in training.
Honourable senators, behind every number lies potential, a path that we can choose to support or abandon. If I may, I would like to draw a very simple parallel.
I arrived here as a young Black immigrant in the country’s only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick. In this province, I was part of an official language minority community. Like many young people, I had a difficult time adjusting and felt isolated. I was under pressure to succeed, with a language barrier that I experienced from both sides: sometimes being too francophone, sometimes not enough.
Thanks to programs and adults who believed in me, and a community that welcomed me, I was able not only to integrate, but also to learn, contribute and grow. My journey is nothing exceptional. It simply shows what becomes possible when a country truly invests in its young people and decides to trust them, regardless of their background, language, or social context.
That’s exactly what this bill proposes: transforming individual successes into collective realities.
This bill does more than just state intentions. For me, it creates a solid, measurable, and accountable national framework. It aims to reduce and ultimately eradicate child poverty, ensure every child has an adequate standard of living, strengthen Canada’s alignment with its international commitments, place children and youth at the heart of public policy, and establish a clear and transparent accountability mechanism.
As Marian Wright Edelman said, children are 100% of our future. What’s more, I believe it’s also true. Investing in young people isn’t just a symbolic gesture; it’s the most cost-effective social investment. Today, young people are the most connected generation, the most innovative, the most able to meet climate, technological and demographic challenges.
In the words of Kofi Annan, no tool will be more effective in shaping a better future than empowering our young people. I hope and pray today that this bill will be not only a moral obligation, but also a strategic lever for building a more just, prosperous and sustainable Canada.
As a member of the youth advisory group of several organizations, including the Canadian Commission for UNESCO and the Michaëlle Jean Foundation, we want young people to be involved in the public policy decision-making process. By implementing these strategies, young people will become agents of change, they will be involved, and these policies will be implemented for and by young people.
It is my sincere hope that this meeting will not be merely a parliamentary exercise, but a clear, lasting, and historic commitment to the children and youth of Canada.
Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for your opening remarks. We will now proceed to questions from committee members.
For this panel, senators will have four minutes for the question, and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or all witnesses.
The first question will be from Senator McPhedran, followed by Senator Moodie, the sponsor of the bill.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for making the time to be with us today.
I have been trying, through my questions, to gather more information not only for our committee but also for, hopefully, the implementation of this bill by asking witnesses to tell us more about what a process would look like in more detail, reaching out to the youth whom you have particular connections with. For my purposes, I would love as much detail as you are comfortable sharing.
In other words, who should be contacted? What kind of process should there be? What kind of follow-up should there be? I realize you don’t have much notice for this question, but with your experience, perhaps you could go into more detail for us.
Mr. Burgesson: I do think there needs to be an office created for children and youth in this country. I know we have a minister right now responsible for children and youth. In an ideal world, we would have a commissioner at the federal level, at the provincial levels and the territories as well.
I had the pleasure of being on the Prime Minister’s Youth Council for a couple of years. In terms of this bill and its implementation, I hope that if there is an office developed, that this office has full-time, dedicated folks who cover each province and are perhaps working in collaboration with the provinces as well to gather information and feedback around how children are doing in each region in the country.
I do agree strongly with the idea of creating an office for children and youth. In the best-case scenario, we are also able to influence the provinces and territories to do the same, if they haven’t yet.
[Translation]
Mr. Diallo: I also support the idea of creating a youth office, but above all the idea that young people must be involved in the office in order to move things forward. I think one of the most important processes would be to make sure that we’re inclusive, that all provinces are represented at the table, but also that civil society is involved. For example, in my case, I am involved in several advisory committees, including the Canadian Commission for UNESCO and the Michaëlle Jean Foundation. We also do some work with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.
I believe that civil society has an equally important role to play. It would be good to include them in the consultation process. There are young people who are entrepreneurs and who face certain difficulties. It is therefore important to find ways and mechanisms for reaching these young people through existing organizations to advance the various objectives.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Razavi: I love the question. A lot of thought can be put into this, but I think it starts with developing or, in many cases, regaining trust with our youth, and that involves working with organizations like ours that have youth advisory committees. There are ample impressive organizations nationwide that have real go-getters on their youth councils, and I think that is a great starting point. Building the trust by working with us as liaisons would be definitely worth considering.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses who have agreed to join us today.
For me, this is a fascinating exercise, listening to some of what you talk about, some areas where I have done work and attempted to make change previously.
I look at some of the key barriers that young people seem to be facing when trying to influence government decision-making. I also look at the current federal landscape in terms of the issues that mean the most to young people.
How might a national strategy build and help in sorting out some of the issues you face in both of those areas to create a more coherent, accountable national framework that would benefit children and youth across Canada?
Mr. Burgesson: The details of the proposed bill include having identifying goals and measuring them through indicators. That is critical. Having measurable goals that can be held accountable is important to making this meaningful. I was happy to see that in the bill. As I’ve said before, there have been efforts nationally through bodies like the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, which are very important spaces for youth to have a voice and to speak to the Prime Minister or to public servants, to ministers around the table, and to inform policy in the moment. I do think an actual, tangible, strategic plan that is measured over time needs to exist.
[Translation]
Mr. Diallo: Yes. I think it’s important to have a national strategy that takes into account the issues facing different social groups. For example, we have Indigenous youth facing difficulties and Afro-descendant youth facing different challenges.
I think it would be good to have measurable objectives in the strategy, but they should also be targeted at social groups based on their needs. It would be extremely important to ensure that all these visible minorities are taken into account in this strategy.
[English]
Mr. Razavi: Thank you. It is really important for us to recognize that, while we want to nurture advocates and policy-makers in our youth, we’re also dealing with a lot of burnout. We, ourselves, do work with schools across the country, and the educators, the champions, the ones who are working to activate them are working with a lot of burnout and hesitation in terms of what they can teach and what they can’t. It would be amazing if we could see a certain level centred on education that would empower youth to understand what sorts of actions that they can access as they are in high school or move beyond high school. That also needs to take into account how we safeguard their mentors but also themselves and the burnout that they are facing today.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Senior: Thank you, all three of you, for being here. I want to be a bit more specific. I really appreciated our previous panel who focused on the issues pertaining to First Nations, Métis, Inuit youth. I also want to use this opportunity to focus on Black and racialized youth.
I want to mention anti-Black racism on the record because it’s important to recognize that the youth most at risk who could possibly benefit from this strategy are youth within the 2SLGBTQI+ community, particularly those who are Black and racialized, and Black youth across the country, especially those who have been living on the margins socially and economically.
I want to get to that because we want the strategy to not just skim the cream off the top but to actually get to the youth who are most at risk in this country, so it is not just another thing, right? I want you to get real with us and talk about what the strategy could do to actually address those particular issues.
I was at a meeting this morning that was looking at what’s happening to Black youth in the school system right here in Ottawa. It is atrocious because Black youth are really being marginalized in Ottawa, but right across the country, too. In Toronto, years ago, 40% of Black youth were failing.
Let’s get real about it and talk about it like it matters. Whoever would like to start, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Diallo: I’d like to begin by talking about Black youth.
We know that there is a lot of work to be done in the fight against racism. I’ve been very involved in the last three years with the New Brunswick Council of People of African Descent. I believe that this strategy has several levels. I, for example, am from New Brunswick. It is an officially bilingual province. Francophones are a minority and represent about 30% of the population. So imagine a young Black man who faces sometimes complicated issues. He is both Black, which is one of the grounds for discrimination, and francophone, but he also lives in a totally bilingual environment where he speaks less English. This young person often encounters difficulties when it comes to accessing quality jobs.
In schools, we see complaints from young people who are victims of racism. I think you raise an extremely important point when you talk about the challenges faced by young people in general, but particularly racialized youth. That should be part of the strategy.
In the case of New Brunswick, reports to this effect have been submitted to the government. The findings of the reports and recommendations were forwarded to the government. It is important to ensure that there is a connection between the federal government, the provinces and civil society to implement recommendations made to the government.
I assume that work is being done in the other provinces. It remains to be seen how all these recommendations will be implemented. In my opinion, this is a task that is everyone’s responsibility.
Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: My question is for Mr. Diallo.
We are hearing this slogan more and more: “nothing about us without us.” You said earlier how important it is to have individual success before collective success. That stayed with me.
I would like to ask you this: As a young person in society, what was the catalyst for you to become a leader among young people? How can we recreate this catalyst to get more young Canadians involved? Ultimately, if we want to develop a youth strategy, they need to have a say in it. What was the trigger that led you to be sitting here today?
Mr. Diallo: The catalyst was a desire to serve. I wanted to make a difference in my community on several levels. I was involved in international student organizations when I was a student. One thing led to another, and I ended up defending the interests of Afro-descendant people in the province as president. However, the common thread linking all these desires was the desire to serve. I think that all young people have a duty to ask themselves what they can contribute to their community. By asking this question, we find the solution and the answer that allows us to develop individually, but also to change and bring about change around us in the community.
I think it is extremely important for young people to realize that it’s important not to always wait for strategies to be put in place to help them; they must proactively tell themselves that we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that light shines where there is darkness. This can be at all levels in our environment, on a small or large scale. I think that’s extremely important.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Thank you for being here today.
[Translation]
It’s very special to have someone from Moncton here today.
[English]
This is a really interesting conversation, and I wanted to thank Mr. Razavi also for bringing up that burnout is real. Probably a lot of people around this table remember being involved in things when they were young, being asked questions, being a part of different strategies and stuff.
I was quite sad to hear, Mr. Burgesson, when you talked about Canada’s first State of Youth Report, that it has just been kind of shelved and that their recommendations have not been put in place.
How do we get the real engagement? How do we get to the real youth? To Senator Senior’s point, we don’t want just the cream of the crop. I met this week, as other senators did, with the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, or CASA. Super bright, awesome young people. But how do we get to the real issues? Mr. Burgesson, maybe you could take this. I would like to hear from you on how we get to the real issues.
Mr. Burgesson: In order to get to the real issues, you need young people working in the environment where decisions are being made or efforts are being deployed. I know we have a Youth Secretariat. I know some of the folks there, and they are amazing people. They care a lot of about young folks and the future. I don’t know if the mechanism of having the Youth Secretariat within the public-servant environment allows young people under 29 to be a part of decision making and implementing and executing on strategy.
There is perhaps a bit of a translation gap that could be happening. You are writing a report through your lived experience, and you are hoping the person reading the report can execute it. The more we can empower young people to be a part of actually executing the recommendations and being part of the teams that are doing this on a day-to-day basis, the more we can see greater success.
This is not any knock the folks at the Youth Secretariat or folks who are working on youth in this government. We need them too. They are pushing, and they’ve been pushing, but we need young people in the system — working in and out of the system — to help execute these recommendations and ideas.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to our witnesses for being here and to Mr. Razavi on the screen. Thank you.
My question follows on some of the other questions. I wanted to just recognize that there is great diversity in children and youth across this country. I was thinking about this relative to how we can be inclusive of all that diversity when we think about assessment and standards because that is in the bill when we are thinking about if we did the job.
Do you have any ideas on how to be inclusive of that diversity when we start to assess or set standards for all children youth in this country, not only those who get to sit at decision-making tables but also those who live in poverty in communities and even on the street? How can we be inclusive of all of them?
I would like to start with you, Mr. Razavi, please, and get your thoughts.
Mr. Razavi: Yes. Thank you for asking that. Youth are quite diverse, especially within the queer community. Consultations like today are an important starting point, but it’s about going even deeper, connecting with more grassroots organizations, ensuring that they are set up for success and putting that into the plan. What does that look like for them? Sometimes, it is just understanding what their funding needs are because they are the ones working on the ground at the grassroots level that will provide you with the greater transparency that you need.
Senator Greenwood: Any of the other witnesses?
[Translation]
Mr. Diallo: I do think that what Mr. Razavi just said is very important. Young people in Canada are very diverse, but sometimes across Canada, in the provinces, the issues are completely different.
One thing we could do to achieve this is to identify organizations that are specifically there to work with and for young people, and ask them what their challenges are and how they could be better supported. Do they need more funding? Do they need guidance? Do they need resources? This would enable us to ensure that the strategy’s objectives are not just for show, but that they also get to the heart of the matter and reach young people, who are the main beneficiaries.
I think it would be important to have advisory committees represented by youth from diverse communities — Indigenous, Black, and so on — who understand and experience these issues, who are young themselves, but who also understand the needs and talk to friends who are experiencing these issues. It’s a lot of groundwork.
It’s an excellent question that we could discuss at length, but there is individual and collective work to be done in this regard.
[English]
Mr. Burgesson: I agree with what has been said so far. Senator Senior made a comment about education, entrepreneurship and economic outcomes. This strategy or this office should have extra panels on certain segments of society. Whether it has to do with poverty, education or economic potential, I think you need to ensure that there are people around the table with lived experience informing those specific areas.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a bit of a broad question.
[Translation]
Thank you very much for being here.
[English]
Listening to all of you, I hear a lot of expertise, competence and knowledge from on the ground. You know exactly what you need to do, who you are talking to and what they need. This is what I wonder when it comes to strategies: What kind of strategy would do more than what you are already doing? That’s one question. Do you need a strategy, or do you need more funding? I guess that is the simple question if I am allowing myself to be blunt. I do believe in the power of a strategy, but then how do we connect the dots? How do we make sure that we let you do what you do best within the strategy?
Who wants to go first?
Mr. Diallo: I will go first, and I will say that we need both. We need the strategy, and we need the funding as well.
[Translation]
The reason is simple: If we have the funds but no clear strategy, I don’t think we’ll achieve our objectives. However, if we have a strategy but no funds, it becomes just as difficult. I think the two are complementary. We have to look at what young people and organizations need from a financial standpoint to achieve the objectives and how they can be included in the strategy, so that it benefits the young people who are the most affected. That would be the key to the strategy: deepening consultations, asking the question — as my colleague was saying — and ensuring that the young people concerned have a voice and are given a say.
How can we ensure that we are helping young entrepreneurs who are struggling? What tax breaks could be offered to Indigenous youth? How could we support young Black people? It is important to ensure that all these support measures are aligned with the strategy’s objectives.
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Burgesson: If I may, regarding strategy or funding, it is definitely both. I think the federal government needs to lead in this area because there are provinces that are doing little to nothing when it comes to focusing on youth issues. The federal government, by creating the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, I believe, influenced a lot of municipal governments and some provincial governments to do the same and to create a table where they are at least listening to young people. This idea of having a strategy is important because you can lead the way and set an example that other governments can follow as well. I will leave it at that.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Razavi, you have about a minute.
Mr. Razavi: Then, I won’t talk about funding although it is important. You mentioned connecting the dots, and a lot of that has to do with understanding where youth are. We need to meet youth where they are, and for us, it is mostly through online social channels and by ensuring that those are safe spaces. We are seeing such an increase in hate speech. We need to work to activate youth on there, to create the ability for them to be able to advocate for themselves and to do so in a way that they can learn more about who they are and what they have rights and access to in a safe way.
That means providing more regulations and policy on hate speech on channels like Meta, TikTok and so on. I think that really needs to be a key priority.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, that concludes first round. We have three senators on second round and 10 minutes. I will ask you to keep questions and answers to three minutes total. I don’t want to cut anybody off, but I will be a bit stricter on timing.
The first senator is Senator Senior. Would you like to repeat the question and direct it to the witnesses who were not able to answer in the first round?
Senator Senior: Thank you. I’m not sure I want to repeat it, but I would just like to say: How do we get to the ones who are most at risk in terms of the vulnerabilities that they are facing and understanding that this has been a longstanding issue? What would some of the solutions be to really have an effective strategy that can actually get to some of those issues?
I would like for us to hear from Mr. Razavi.
Mr. Razavi: Thank you. I think it is really important to recognize that those most at risk, unfortunately, don’t often have ample opportunities for safe spaces around them, and a lot of the time, that is at home as well. Looking at how we can create safe spaces — whether that is funding community centres or other opportunities within the organizations — for them to feel safe so that they can convene and provide the input or the output that you require and really feel that level of trust, which is what I keep bringing up.
Mr. Burgesson: If I may, I think we need to be partnering with those closest to the young people that you are talking about being at risk and empowering them, whether through funding and resources, to serve those young people how they know best. Not to say, “You are going to do this.” Not to impose, but to really empower those closest to those at risk to do that work.
I will share an example on the more economic empowerment side that I think is important for us to consider and the government in general to consider, which is this: When I started my first business, I walked into an Innovation Hub in Halifax. Publicly funded Innovation Hubs — there are a couple of dozen across the country — I walked into that space, and I didn’t see anyone in there that looked like me, and I didn’t see it in the membership. I didn’t see it on their team. I didn’t see it on their board. This is a very big issue outside of Toronto, the diversity within the innovation ecosystem, where a lot of money is being poured, and I think it needs attention.
The government has put money toward programs like the Black Entrepreneurship Program. That’s really key. It is important. It is enabling groups that are closest to Black entrepreneurs to serve them well.
What I worry about in that example is that you are funding this Black entrepreneurship sub-strategy, and it is separate from the mainstream ecosystem. Whether it is the superclusters that are getting billions of dollars, or the Innovation Hubs that have venture capital firms pouring money into founders there, we need to ensure that there are bridges being made in terms of empowerment but also pathways.
I think that’s key to the anti-Black racism question you asked earlier.
Senator Senior: Thank you all.
Senator Moodie: I would like to refocus. We’ve had wonderful discussions about the issues facing children and young people and how to address them and get at them.
I would like to focus us back on the bill, because I heard an intriguing suggestion earlier. It began in the last panel about a national advisory group. In that conversation, it was around Indigenous affairs. I’ve heard it in this conversation in a more expanded way, so I’m wondering what you think about the need for an advisory group to become part of this process that would be outlined in this bill and about what we say to the government in terms of the framework to build a strategy? Do we need to put that in, and who should be in it? Are they distinct groups? Is it divided out — if parallel processes are developed — into groups that apply to each process individually?
The other part of this question would have to do with how you see the government populating that advisory group.
The Deputy Chair: Who would you like to direct it to first?
Senator Moodie: I will start with Mr. Burgesson and then Mr. Diallo and then, please, Mr. Razavi.
Mr. Burgesson: Great question. I think it would be essential to have an advisory group as part of the consultation process. It will benefit the outreach to different communities in different regions and different populations across the country.
Having an advisory group or — we could call it — a youth expert panel of some sort throughout that process will also be important to analyze and synthesize the information and data that you are getting back during the consultation process.
Again, I mentioned earlier that the risk of having a lot of information just shared within the public service to be deciphered is that if there are no young people around that table making sense of that information, then there is a potential where there is a bit of a lag, or information could be misinterpreted if young people are not part of synthesizing the data. I do think your comment about having some sort of panel or a national group is critical.
Maybe one way to frame this group is similar to a board of directors. You have a number of folks who are coming up to every monthly meeting, and then you have committees that are specialized on different issues, whether it is Indigenous relations, poverty reduction or anti-Black racism. You could have subcommittees to this body that can get a little more granular.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Moodie, you are out of time, but I will allow, perhaps, 30 seconds for each of the other witnesses to briefly answer your question.
Mr. Diallo, would you like to start?
[Translation]
Mr. Diallo: Yes. Thank you.
I think it’s crucial to have a youth advisory committee. Part of this committee could be a group of experts who understand the issues facing young people. They could help achieve the strategy’s objectives. They understand the process and can be a conduit between the strategy’s objectives and the young people concerned. I think it’s essential that this group be made up of young people and experts who understand the issues. It is essential that we have a committee.
Thank you.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Razavi, your 30 seconds?
Mr. Razavi: Thank you. I agree completely with the structure that Mr. Burgesson suggested. It does require a lot of work, but if we are not here to do the work, then why are we doing this? We need to do it properly, and it does require youth voices and youth consultation while respecting the diverse variety of youth that we need to be consulting with.
I agree with everything that was said, and I really want to share how vital I believe that is.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today.
(The committee adjourned.)