:
We have quorum, and accordingly, I call this meeting to order, acknowledging first of all that in Ottawa we meet on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on April 29, 2021, the committee is continuing its study of enforcement on first nations reserves.
To ensure an orderly meeting, these are the practices to follow.
Listen and speak in the official language of your choice. At the bottom of the screen, the globe icon is where you can select either floor, English or French audio. As you present your testimony, you can switch from one language to another without bothering to adjust the icon, so just carry on.
When speaking, ensure that your video is turned on. Please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, mikes should always be on mute.
Pursuant to the motion adopted on March 9, 2021, I must inform the committee that all technical pretests have been carried out.
With us today, for the first hour, are the witnesses from the Department of Indigenous Services: Christopher Duschenes, Stephen Traynor and Jacques Boutin. Maybe not everyone is here yet, but that will be the panel. From the Department of Justice we have Margaret McIntosh, Jacques Talbot, Stephen Harapiak and Andrew Ouchterlony. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness we have Douglas May and Julie Mugford. From the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions we have Jeff Richstone and Marke Kilkie.
Thank you all for taking the time to appear.
You have three minutes each, in the following order. We will start off with the Department of Justice.
I'm not sure who's speaking, but please go ahead, for three minutes.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
My name is Margaret McIntosh. I'm from the Aboriginal Law Centre in the Department of Justice. I'm joined today by several colleagues from departmental legal services units with expertise in various aspects of the laws, policies and programs that this committee will be examining in relation to the challenges with enforcement of first nation laws and bylaws.
I'm pleased to be sharing opening remarks with officials from Indigenous Services Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Gaps in enforcement have been highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when first nations looked for measures to protect their communities. While many first nations took direct action to ensure the safety of their communities during the pandemic, uncertainty with respect to enforcement has had adverse impacts on the safety and well-being of indigenous peoples.
Gaps associated with enforcement are not limited, however, to the COVID-19 context. Enforcement issues vary significantly across first nations and reflect a complex landscape of different governance models, access to health and social services, traditions and cultures, relationships with federal and provincial governments, and financial resources.
For instance, some communities experience challenges in enforcing Indian Act bylaws related to drugs and alcohol, leading to serious social problems on reserve. Other communities face difficulties with the enforcement of eviction laws pursuant to the First Nation Lands Management Act, forcing them to seek costly private prosecutions.
Additionally, many first nations seek the development of approaches that restore their traditional laws and legal traditions. These may require new approaches to enforcement that are different from those currently available under the criminal justice system.
The federal government has an important role to play in this area. However, making significant progress requires extensive co-operation between first nations, provinces and the federal government, given the complexity of the issues and the number of players involved.
Long-term solutions must be grounded in indigenous self-governance and leave room for flexibility to reflect the diverse realities, experiences and circumstances of individual communities.
Likewise, provinces are necessary partners given the shared jurisdiction over administration of justice and the need to facilitate coordination across justice processes in Canada.
At the federal level, the Minister of Justice has responsibility—shared with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the areas of policing and corrections—for the federal policy on administration of justice, including with respect to indigenous peoples.
Recognizing that Justice Canada can play a helpful coordinating role in this area, we've been seeking opportunities to work with indigenous nations, federal departments and interested provinces, including Ontario and B.C.
On January 15, the received a supplementary mandate letter in which he was tasked with the development of an indigenous justice strategy in consultation and co-operation with a number of federal ministers, provinces, territories and indigenous partners.
While we're still in the early days in the work on developing this strategy, which will require extensive engagement with indigenous peoples, we believe it could also provide an opportunity for discussions on the enforcement of first nation bylaws and laws with first nation leaders and partners.
At the community level, Justice Canada is also exploring how we can better support indigenous communities. The negotiation of administration of justice agreements provides a potential forward-looking response to this demand.
These tailor-made or stand-alone administration of justice agreements could provide practical, on-the-ground solutions and incubation of innovative approaches that could be part of longer-term solutions to address enforcement and prosecution gaps.
In closing, Justice Canada is committed to working with first nations, provinces and federal departments, since a coordinated and focused approach will be necessary to resolve the gap in enforcement and prosecution of first nation bylaws and laws.
Thank you. My colleagues and I would be pleased to respond to members' questions.
:
Hello. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today.
My name is Julie Mugford. I'm a senior director in the crime prevention, corrections, criminal justice and aboriginal policing policy directorate within Public Safety. My responsibility lies in the area of policy relating to the first nations policing program. Today I'm pleased to be accompanied by my colleagues, Douglas May from the emergency management and programs branch of Public Safety, and Jacques Talbot from legal services.
I recognize how important the effect of enforcement and prosecution of laws on first nations reserves is for advancing self-determination. I also understand that closing the enforcement prosecution gaps is required for a true nation-to-nation relationship. However, the current patchwork of overlapping interests and responsibilities in relation to first nation laws and bylaws between federal government departments, provinces, territories and first nation communities themselves has led to challenges in their enforcement and prosecution.
Making progress on this matter requires effort by many partners, including representatives in the federal, provincial, territorial and first nation governments. Policing in first nation communities is a shared interest beyond just the federal government. Provinces and territories are key partners in this area and have jurisdiction over the administration of justice.
Although Public Safety Canada does not have a direct mandate regarding the enforcement of laws or their prosecution, it does have a role to play regarding how they may be enforced by police services, when relevant. This is as a result of its first nations policing program, which invests in indigenous policing, as well as with contract policing, which allows provinces and municipalities to retain the services of the RCMP as a provincial or local police force.
As mentioned, the administration of justice, including policing, is an area of provincial jurisdiction. However, Public Safety Canada works with provinces, territories and municipalities through contract RCMP policing services to ensure the effective administration and management of police services agreements.
Public Safety is responsible for the first nations policing program. This program is cost shared with provinces and territories, most of which also hold agreements with Canada for the delivery of provincial and territorial police services by the RCMP, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec.
The Government of Canada recognizes the need to strengthen and expand culturally responsive policing in indigenous communities. This is evidenced by 's mandate commitment and the recent funding commitment announced in budget 2021, which announced $861 million over five years beginning in 2021-22, and $145 million ongoing to support culturally responsive policing and community safety services in indigenous communities. It also includes $43.7 million over five years to co-develop a legislative framework for first nations policing that recognizes first nation policing as an essential service, and $540.3 million over five years and $126.8 million ongoing to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations policing program and to expand the program to new indigenous communities. There are $108.6 million over five years to repair, renovate and replace policing facilities in first nation and Inuit communities. The budget commitment also includes $64.6 million over five years and $18.1 million ongoing to enhance indigenous-led crime prevention strategies and community safety services, and $103.8 million over five years for Indigenous Services Canada to support a new “pathways to safe indigenous communities” initiative to support indigenous communities in developing more holistic, community-based safety and wellness models.
To advance this important work, collaboration and engagement with first nation communities and organizations, provinces and territories, police organizations and others is crucial. We know we have a lot of work ahead of us. It's very important and we are looking forward to advancing this very important mandate commitment.
Again, I thank you for inviting me to speak today. I'm available for subsequent questions.
My name is Jeff Richstone. I am the Director General and Senior General Counsel in the HQ Counsel Group of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the PPSC. With me this morning is my colleague Marke Kilkie, General Counsel in our group.
I will start by speaking in general terms about the act that establishes our service and about our mandate. Mr. Kilkie will talk about the protocol we have established to help Indigenous Communities combat the pandemic. Pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the PPSC is an independent federal entity that initiates and conducts federal prosecutions on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada.
There has existed for many years a gap with respect to the prosecution of Indigenous Community laws. Those laws are enacted by communities under a number of law-making authorities, but the common theme is the nation-to-nation relationship that Indigenous Communities share with Canada.
The prosecution of these laws is not part of PPSC’s mandate. Essentially, our function is to conduct prosecutions of federal statutes on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. Reconciling the unique law-making authorities of Indigenous Communities with the traditional criminal justice system is a complex issue engaging the mandates of several federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, as well as Indigenous Communities themselves.
Despite our limited statutory role, PPSC is committed to working with partners to explore options and develop long-term solutions. To that end, prior to the pandemic, PPSC was in the early stages of initiating discussions with other stakeholders to see how to bring this issue to the forefront, in the hope of identifying solutions to fit the needs of Indigenous Communities.
I will now hand the floor to my colleague Mr. Kilkie, who will continue with our opening remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chair, in light of the urgent need presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and in particular a situation brought to our attention in Saskatchewan, PPSC has agreed to conduct the prosecution of violations of bylaws passed pursuant to the Indian Act and which are directly related to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.
This initiative is being limited to Indian Act bylaws in order to ensure that PPSC has the legal jurisdiction required to conduct these prosecutions. This arrangement can be instituted upon an indigenous community requesting that PPSC conduct these prosecutions and entering into a protocol agreement which makes clear that proceedings are being conducted on behalf of the Government of Canada. This protocol, and in particular the wording “in relation to” proceedings conducted on behalf of the Government of Canada, is required in order to give PPSC jurisdiction to prosecute.
In addition, PPSC will only prosecute bylaws that have been reviewed to ensure that they comply with the Indian Act as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The PPSC will provide legal advice in respect to investigation and prosecution of these Indian Act bylaws to the applicable law enforcement agency, whether that be an indigenous community's own police service, provincial police or the RCMP, as the case may be.
Currently, PPSC has entered into 11 such protocol agreements with communities in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. We are just now starting to see charges referred to under these bylaws. We are currently also in discussion with several communities in various other parts of the country.
To be clear, this is a temporary measure and is not in any way meant to represent the solution to the broader issue of who should prosecute indigenous community laws and the process that should be followed in doing so. This measure is not being imposed on any community and it is not meant to displace arrangements that may already be in place to prosecute community bylaws or to prosecute provincial laws that may apply in a given community.
I will now turn back to Mr. Richstone for some concluding remarks.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Stephen Traynor with Indigenous Services Canada, and I will give our opening remarks.
Thank you, everyone, for inviting Indigenous Services Canada to appear before you today.
As noted, my name is Stephen Traynor, and I am the director general for lands and environmental management. With me today are supposed to be Christopher Duschenes, Jacques Boutin and colleagues from our legal services unit, and hopefully they'll join us soon.
The department recognizes that enforcement and prosecution of first nation laws and bylaws is an area of growing concern for communities. We acknowledge that this concern has been amplified across the country in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
We want to echo our colleagues' point that this issue is a shared responsibility, where each of us plays a role along the enforcement continuum. ISC works collaboratively to build capacity for first nations to develop their own laws and bylaws; for instance, under the Indian Act and the framework agreement on first nations land management.
With respect to Indian Act bylaws, while recognizing that much remains unaddressed, we understand that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada have committed to work with communities to enter into agreements to support the enforcement and prosecution of Indian Act bylaws.
ISC ministerial oversight and disallowance powers under section 82 of the Indian Act were removed in December 2014 to allow first nations to exercise more autonomy over their governance. However, in the spirit of co-operation, ISC continues to review draft bylaws from first nation communities for comment only, and only when specifically requested by a first nation. However, the decision to enact and the final content of the bylaw remain the responsibility of the band.
In terms of funding for policing, enforcement and prosecution, the department has supported other government departments and agencies in their work to pursue policing agreements and to continue supporting the administration of justice.
ISC's role has generally been to support first nations bylaw development through training, draft review and field support.
I would like to turn to first nations land management. ISC, through partnership with the lands advisory board and resource centre, provides significant support to participating first nations to develop their own land codes to reassert jurisdiction over their reserve lands and environment.
The framework agreement and the First Nations Land Management Act provide robust enforcement and prosecution powers to communities. That said, as first nations reassert their jurisdiction and develop their own laws to govern their lands and environment, participating communities also play a key role in determining how they want to enforce these laws and prosecute offences.
In recent years, we have seen first nations communities taking a leadership role on these issues, and I hope the committee will hear from them in the coming weeks. A leadership example that I would like to highlight today includes, in British Columbia, the K'ómoks First Nation, which set a precedent in 2018 by successfully undertaking a private prosecution of a trespass offence under their land code.
In Saskatchewan, the Muskoday and Whitecap Dakota first nations have entered into an MOU with the Government of Saskatchewan to work together to explore approaches to address the enforcement and prosecution of first nations laws and bylaws.
In addition, a national online conversation on the enforcement of indigenous laws has been led by the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, supported by ISC, in collaboration with the Department of Justice, the RCMP and Public Safety. The conversation is a series of enforcement webinars promoting dialogue among indigenous governments, provinces and the Government of Canada on how to address the challenges of creating effective and affordable enforcement systems for indigenous laws.
Enforcement and prosecution of first nation laws and bylaws is a complex and multifaceted issue, and our collective effort will be required to move the agenda forward. ISC will continue to work with federal, provincial and first nations partners to better understand the challenges and opportunities related to supporting effective enforcement. We look forward to the contribution of this committee in advancing this work.
[Translation]
Thank you.
[English]
Meegwetch.
Good morning, everyone. There is such expertise on this panel today, so I'm excited to get started here.
I want to talk about an issue that is related to indigenous policing, given that our study is exploring a whole bunch of options. Something that is personally of interest to me is restorative justice.
My first question is for Ms. Mugford, but I'll also open it up to the floor because there might be other areas and departments who may want to speak to it.
I have a whole series of questions, so we'll maybe try to keep the answers tight here.
Ms. Mugford, can you or someone on the panel provide a brief understanding of what restorative justice is with respect to indigenous peoples and what role indigenous peoples have in that process?
:
Thank you, all, for being here to testify today. I found your testimony very informative and I really appreciate it.
I will start my questions by making a statement that, I reassure you, I don't need any of you to respond to.
In my opinion, this is a serious form of systemic racism, because the systems are so confusing, so convoluted and so all over the place, and the people who are paying for it are indigenous communities across Canada. That's not a personal attack; it's something we should all reflect on. The fact that these systems are in place and the way they are in place are devastating to communities.
I remember being a foster parent on reserve and trying to get the police to make sure the child in my care was protected. It was absolutely impossible because the jurisdiction of the restraining order was provincial, and we were in federal. It's so complex. I want to acknowledge that it is really complex.
Mr. Kilkie, you talked about protocol agreements, which are agreements with indigenous communities around prosecution. I'm wondering if any of those are public and if that's something the committee could look at.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here today. I appreciate their time.
Enforcement is really a part of justice. Equal enforcement is important, regardless of the situation, if the enforcement happens in the same.... The other part about it is the time from enforcement to prosecution. Those are important pieces of justice. Something I notice in the vast riding I represent is that the time from an infraction or an enforcement to the time it's resolved sometimes can be years. Sometimes the prosecution takes place hundreds of kilometres away from where the infraction took place.
Those things don't necessarily lead to a community that functions, mostly because of the timing. There doesn't seem to be justice because, for example, there's an incident; we try to enforce it; there's an infraction with fines and charges laid, and then two years later it's somewhat resolved, but everybody's forgotten about it by that time.
I think I'll start with you, Mr. Traynor. I'm not very familiar with the First Nations Land Management Act and how that works. If there is an infraction and there's enforcement on it, how long does that take to be resolved, typically?
If I could come back to you again, Mr. Traynor, you talked about the K’ómoks situation. I represent K’ómoks and know Hegus Rempel quite well. You described it as a success and I'm curious about that, because that nation of course spent $178,000 of its own resources to fight this in court. They won, but this is one of the challenges when we talk about so many different things that the nations themselves are having to find a way to resource, and it keeps them financially unable to build up their own economic independence.
You're specifically involved in land management. I'm wondering what is the gap that creates a situation such that indigenous communities, first nations communities, can do all the work and create the bylaws, and yet when they call, they can't get those bylaws enforced. I've heard many stories about how, if a community has a good relationship with the local RCMP—and for my riding, that is what it is—the RCMP will show up and stand there. They can't really do much, but they're there in solidarity, in the hope that the policing that now the chief and council are also taking on, on top of everything else....
What is the gap? Why can't they enforce their own bylaws?
:
Thank you to everyone here for the invitation to speak on a matter of great importance to my community, which is the K'ómoks First Nation, and in fact to all indigenous communities, whether they are under the Indian Act, land code, or are self-governing under a modern treaty.
I'd like to start with the following statement.
Self-government and the rule of law are meaningless and empty slogans if first nation laws cannot be enforced. The Crown has the necessary tools to enforce its laws. Federal and provincial governments are well financed and equipped with police forces, prosecutors and courts to ensure their laws are enforced. Enforcement of first nation laws is complex because the right enforcement tools are not available and capacity for enforcement is not yet developed with first nations.
In British Columbia, the RCMP will generally not enforce first nation laws because the provincial prosecution service will not prosecute offences under first nation laws, whether they are bylaws under the Indian Act, land code laws, or laws enacted by treaty nations. This is because they are not enactments for the purposes of provincial law.
The K'ómoks First Nation helped fill this jurisdictional void by addressing the unenforceability issue head-on in court in 2018 with the K'ómoks First Nation v. Thordarson and Sorbie decision. K'ómoks had a lessee, Ryan Thordarson, and his wife, Amelia Sorbie, who refused to pay rent to their landlord, who held a certificate of possession. Their lease was terminated and they were evicted. However, they still refused to leave. By refusing to leave, they had committed a land code offence because they had no lawful right to be on our lands. They were thus issued a notice of trespass by me under our land code, which is a quasi-criminal offence.
I should state that the difference between Indian Act bylaws and land code is that the authority is transferred from Canada to first nation land code nations to develop laws and to have those enforced. That's where this confusion seems to come in.
The RCMP said they could not remove Thordarson or charge them under the land code offence. They would attend and keep the peace as our laws were not “real laws”. The Crown would not prosecute as it didn't recognize our laws or the authority we had to create these laws. These are not bylaws; these are laws.
K'ómoks had a difficult decision. We had someone squatting on our land illegally, so we decided the only way forward was to charge and prosecute the offence itself via Criminal Code provisions that allow for a private prosecution of a criminal offence. This was unheard of.
The court was baffled and unfamiliar with the land code and the authority granted to develop and enforce laws under the framework agreement of the First Nations Land Management Act. After 10 months in court proceedings, the court eventually got to the understanding and ordered the police to remove the trespasser. This carried significant costs to K'ómoks in legal fees for private prosecution, in the ballpark of $178,000. The trespassers got 10 months of free rent and were fined $1,000 each. This was hardly an equitable decision. It was an extremely costly process. We should not have had to go to court to get that court order.
Just this week—today, in fact—we have another trespasser on reserve who was issued a notice of trespass by me and an RCMP officer two days ago. We are not hopeful that he will leave. In fact, he has dared us to take him to court. We could potentially be looking at another costly court case.
With the court decision in Thordarson in favour of K'ómoks, the question of enforcement should be a non-issue and the RCMP should be there to enforce the matter. However, we've been told by the RCMP lawyer that they have not been granted that direction from higher-ups within the RCMP. While our relationship with the RCMP has drastically improved due to a change in inspectors, their hands are tied at the moment with regard to enforcing laws, because of the lack of direction from above.
A big selling feature of the land code framework agreement is being self-governing on our reserve lands, with the ability to create our own laws and have them enforced and recognized in courts, which wasn't happening under the Indian Act. Funding also remains an issue to develop laws and enforcement.
A secondary issue that we have is that K'ómoks is also in the ninth year of stage five treaty negotiations. We recently held a forum on first nation law enforcement in partnership with the BC Treaty Commission. This forum included land code nations, nations negotiating treaties and self-governing nations, as well as police officers and representatives from the offices of the attorneys general, both federal and provincial.
What we learned was that nations such as Maa-nulth and Tla'amin have been struggling with enforcement issues as treaty nations, and neither has successfully prosecuted a single offence under their laws.
To date, the only modern treaty nation to successfully address an enforcement issue is the Tsawwassen First Nation, which has a very costly enforcement agreement with the Delta municipal police.
To be self-governing, first nations need to have proper enforcement tools, including an adjudicative body, enforcement services and capacity for policing, and mechanisms that harmonize with the provincial court administrative systems.
We are trying to achieve the above through our land code by creating things like community protection laws, adjudication laws and a justice tribunal, and also through our treaty negotiations because we are very close to voting on a treaty. If we're dealing with this under the land code as a self-governing portion under the Indian Act, then how is this going to work out for a treaty? So far, modern-day treaties provide only the first of these tools, and that is law-making. It's the same with the land code.
Before closing, I just want to refer back to the enforcement forum that was hosted by the BC Treaty Commission. It had a number of recommendations. I'm happy to provide these to you, to whomever I need to provide them to, so that they can be shared. There are a number of recommendations, including needing language in the treaty to ensure that first nations laws under treaty can be adjudicated under a first nations justice tribunal.
With regard to the mechanics of enforcement, we need to change the treaty language and provincial law to clarify that first nations laws are “enactments” for the purpose of the Provincial Court Act. That will allow the filing of a first nations justice tribunal order and enable it to come to the order of a court to trigger court enforcement mechanisms.
With regard to policing and enforcement agencies, we have tried for years to negotiate a tripartite agreement with the Province of B.C. and the RCMP, and we have been told repeatedly that they no longer do these tripartite agreements. I understand that may be changing, and I really hope it does. The issues we're facing here in K'ómoks with drug dealers, people trespassing....
:
Good afternoon, everyone.
[Witness spoke in Tsuut'ina as follows:]
Glánįt’e duhú dziné k’e. Keith Blake húshe Dene Nałts’i k’odheré Santana Dene Dedliné ha.
[Tsuut'ina text translated as follows:]
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Keith Blake. I am the chief of police of the Tsuut'ina Nation.
[English]
I'm also an executive member of the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association and am proud to represent 36 self-administered first nations police services across our country.
First, I want to thank you for this opportunity. It's a critically important discussion, and our communities have been speaking long and loud in relation to this very topic.
As this discussion relates to the enforcement of first nations, which really falls under the police jurisdiction, I thought it would initially be important to touch on the first nations policing program. I was fortunate enough to hear some of the other panellists, and this was a discussion point. I thought it might be good, however, to put it through a first nations policing lens.
The FNPP is over 35 years old and is in dire need of immediate change. The program is a signed funding agreement—in our case a tripartite agreement between the nation, the province and the federal government—which unfortunately creates inequities and unfair restrictions for first nations police services that are not experienced by the traditional mainstream policing services.
The FNPP has not yet been designated as an essential service and it falls under, as was mentioned earlier, the grants and contributions program. The funding is neither long-term nor sustainable, and our funding agreements, specifically in our case, are really year-to-year extensions.
This funding model truly does not allow us to properly prepare and strategize for the community's needs and public safety. It's also funded only for what could be termed core policing function—that is, responsive models. We're not funded to have community programming, prevention or the specified and specialty units other police services have.
It's important and, I think, really critical to note that former public safety minister Ralph Goodale stated that the program “does not cut the mustard” and is in dire need of change. The current minister, , stated that the FNPP needs updating.
Canada has a responsibility to improve first nations policing by making it an essential service and providing adequate funding for the nations to build and sustain proper infrastructure, including governance models.
This unstable funding model has really created an air of instability within our services, whereby our officers and our staff members don't feel that this is a program that will be sustained, and therefore feel that perhaps their profession and their jobs may not be sustained.
This disparity also includes what we receive in our salaries and in our pension and benefits. We end up usually losing our really high-quality officers to more mainstream policing services that have a sustainable funding model at a higher rate.
To sum up, our first nation police services are underfunded and understaffed and face unfair barriers and impediments; yet we still see unprecedented successes in effective, efficient and culturally appropriate community-based policing.
I will also state that we were very happy to hear of the infusion into the program in the last federal budget. We're guardedly optimistic that it will bring some needed support and changes within the program.
Speaking to the enforcement side, the enforcement role that the police undertake is just one important part of the structure of the justice system in our communities. There is the legislative piece, the enforcement piece, the prosecution and the adjudication component. Though we recognize that not many communities have the direct ability to change the way funding and the justice systems correlate, it is important to consider the historical traumas experienced by indigenous peoples, throughout our country and for generations, while considering the ongoing harm that inadequate funding causes in the justice resources that government bodies provide; it is to one of the most vulnerable populations within our country.
Nation-legislated offences are an important aspect of self-determination. They are created from a community lens to address the individual nation's self-identification and the specific needs of the community and the challenges they face.
A key piece of the justice framework is the prosecution of lawfully enacted nation legislation. Most jurisdictions across the country do not recognize or prosecute nation-legislated offences. The challenge most indigenous communities face in this country is the refusal or the reluctance to have provincial crown prosecutors or federal prosecutors undertake the prosecution of these nation-legislation cases.
Although this is unfortunately the situation that most communities find themselves in, there are glimmers of hope. In this instance I'm going to provide a brief glimpse into our Tsuut'ina Nation justice model.
We have a signed agreement with the Province of Alberta for what is termed our peacemakers court, which is unique. Across this province there are no other communities that have this agreement, so we are unique. Our court is configured in a healing circle and is mandated to have an indigenous crown prosecutor, an indigenous judge and indigenous court workers.
It also has a peacemaker present, who oversees this process. The peacemaking process can be utilized if the offence falls under certain criteria. Some offences are ineligible—things like manslaughter or sexual assault. The individual can be recommended throughout the peacemaking process and can be recommended by the Crown, by the judge or by the defence, and the recommendation can occur any time throughout that process, pre-charge or post-charge.
The process requires the approval of the victim. It is also an agreement that the offender must enter into. It requires the offender to appear before a peacemaking tribunal. That tribunal will consist of formally mediated, trained community members and elders. It's designed to be restorative and less punitive, and it really does look at the root causes of crime.
This peacemaking process enables the justice system to address what I spoke to earlier—the root cause of crime—as well as both Criminal Code offences and nation-legislated offences, through a traditional value system that provides the community a voice in determining what an appropriate resolution may be.
Although there are still many challenges and still much work to be done in indigenous communities across the country, I want to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
I want to thank both Chief Rempel and Chief Blake for being with us today. Your testimony and knowledge and experience are very helpful as we pursue some answers to this question about policing as an essential service.
The mandate letters for the and the both refer to co-developing a legislative framework to recognize first nations policing as an essential service. In our last panel—I'm not sure if you were both observing the first hour panel—we had officials from four different federal departments on the panel. If I recall, I believe it was Ms. Blaney who asked the question about defining essential services. I'm not sure we actually got an answer to that question from the department officials. We have this mandate that talks about policing as an essential service. I'm not sure anybody is telling us or defining for us what that is in the jurisdictional quagmire we seem to find in the federal departments.
I'm going to start with Chief Blake, and then, Chief Rempel, ask if you'd be prepared to answer the same question.
Would you, in your terms, take a moment and define for me, in your experience at the level of work that you both do, what defining police service as an essential service would mean as a difference in the communities you serve?
:
Thank you. I appreciate that opportunity.
Again, I'm very much wanting to understand what essential services means in the definition from Public Safety Canada and the federal government, because that hasn't been clearly defined in any of the meetings I have attended.
I think what's key and critical is to ensure that again we're not under a grants and contributions program under which funding cannot be sustained or secured. We need to recognize and realize that we are not asking for anything more in our funding, but we certainly don't want anything less. Our communities deserve it, and we want to ensure that our service officers and staff are treated in the same manner that other police services often take for granted.
The term “essential service”, I know, is something that needs to be spoken to and addressed, but I hope it relates to sustainable long-term funding that can be secured and assured to our communities, and that there is the recognition that policing isn't just a responsive model. It needs to address the root causes of crime through crime prevention and preventative programming, as well as providing us opportunities to grow our police service and have those specialized units that can address the problems within our communities for which we have support only through outside agencies: the RCMP in provincial policing jurisdictions, the OPP and the Quebec police service.
Those are just some of my comments, and thank you for that.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to both of our witnesses in this hour for providing your very valuable insight and perspective on this.
Chief Rempel and Vice-President Blake, we really appreciate your being here today. Thank you.
My question is focusing on the path forward and the next three to five years. Budget 2021 proposes to provide almost a billion dollars over the next five years, and in particular over half a billion dollars to support indigenous communities currently served under the first nations policing program and to expand that program to new communities.
In addition to that, there are over $100 million to repair, renovate and replace a lot of the policing facilities that have no doubt worn the test of time in first nations and Inuit communities in Canada. In addition to that, there are over $100 million over the next five years for a new pathways to safe indigenous communities initiative, and to develop a more holistic and community-based safety and wellness model.
Given that you would like and indeed deserve deep consultations on these expenditures and investments in indigenous communities, I would love to hear your reflections on how these investments would and potentially could positively impact your communities with better outcomes for your constituencies, as well as any recommendations you have.
Vice-President Blake, I see that your mute is off, so I'd ask you to go first and provide enough time so that Chief Rempel is also able to reflect. Thank you.
:
Thank you, sir, for this opportunity.
I can speak from experience in the past. Of course, the program itself depends upon our federal and provincial funding partners, 52% from our federal partners and 48% from our provincial partners.
The problem with this type of funding is that if we don't have that 52% or 48%, we just don't get it. Again, provincially, we're facing some challenges in the province of Alberta. I don't know if their 48% would be available to us.
The other challenge I've seen in the past is that it pits our first nations police services against each other. We're vying for all the dollars that are available, and I think we're all in dire need of that money. Again, it's about the best business case. Really, it's not the way I would like to see it. I would like to see evaluations that are more objective and that provide us all accessibility to the funds that are needed.
Again, it is welcome, and we are guardedly optimistic that it will make a difference. Ultimately, however, just to give you some perspective, our service received an additional resource two years ago, and prior to that, it was 12 years before we had any funding for an additional resource. That's far too long, and I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that, for that period of time, we needed growth. Our communities are the fastest-growing communities in Canada, and we have the largest youth population, which needs preventative programming, prevention and engagement. It's hard to do it when all you're doing is responding to calls.
Again, I'll speak on the Tsuut'ina experience, because provincially that will change throughout the country. We have to follow all the legislative requirements that every police service in Alberta does, so we are no different. Our training needs to be at certain levels. We previously would send our officers to Depot, the RCMP training academy, but what we now have is an agreement with the Calgary Police Service whereby our officers will attend their Crowfoot training centre for the six-month duration. They can continue to live here on the nation and travel to and from the training academy in Calgary. It also involves an ongoing training program that we have here.
We have the same qualifications and recertifications. All the things we do are the same as every other service. We have the same accreditation; we have the same authorities as other police services, and we're proud of that. We don't want to be less than; we want to be equal to.
When it comes to the ongoing training, I'm very proud to say that our service also looks to the leaders within the culturally appropriate training. Again, we don't like looking at the culture training; that's a very sterile term. We look at the reframing of our relationships with indigenous peoples. We offer this training to all police services within the provinces, and in fact the country. We held one two weeks ago, for three days. We had the global indigenous model of the situation that Canada has faced. Then we move it down to each region of the country. We also have the lived experiences from people who have suffered as a result of the justice system, and all that we know of. We speak to elders. It's a three-day program, and it's holistic and fulsome.
Again, we host that training every two to three months, and we invite people across the country, law enforcement officials from everywhere, to take that on with us. That's an essential need, and it's something that's missing, I think, in many jurisdictions.
I want to thank both of the witnesses for being here today.
I would like to start with you, Ms. Rempel. First of all, thank you so much for being here with us this morning.
The first thing I will say is, on the recommendations you talked about, please feel free to send those to the clerk, and we'll make sure they're included in the testimony.
The first question I have is around the land code.
It seemed to me from your presentation that when you spoke about that, it was a progressive process of moving toward self-governance. You moved out of something where the RCMP could come in and enforce; you moved to something that was promoted by the federal government, and now you're in a position where you can't enforce it. I just want to make sure I had that right.
Right now under our land code we are developing a community protection law, an adjudication law and a justice tribunal. It doesn't specifically say we can do that within the framework agreement, but it doesn't say we cannot. Those are the options we're looking at.
We have so many first nation communities adjacent to K'ómoks First Nation, like Homalco, Campbell River, Cape Mudge and others, that are also land code nations. When I was talking with other lands managers, prior to being chief, we kicked around the idea of developing a kind of first nations enforcement department where we could cost-share that among first nations land management nations. That's a possible solution. They would, of course, need the required training and the funding.
That's always been the question. Where does that funding come from? I don't think that the FNLM is as funded as it could be by the federal government for the amount of authority that it has passed on to first nations. I feel that there's a serious lack of funding for the FNLM.
:
Each community is very unique. Each governance structure is very unique. It's very difficult to give a global picture, other than to say that there is a strong desire within all the communities to have legislation that is reflective of their community and their desires on law enforcement, as well as legislation that supports the safe running of their community and the safety of their community members.
When you look for best practices, there are many across the country. Obviously, my familiarity comes with what we have locally, and I think it really takes a Herculean effort to move this to where there's actually buy-in from our province within the provincial court system. Obviously, if it has to deal with the federal side, with the COVID laws that have come in and the Health Act laws, that is being supported through the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and that's good to see.
Again, what I always like to say is that it's really important to hear from each community as to what their uniqueness is and how their structures support the community. I will say that in our instance here, there's is a strong community connection. Every two years, we reach out to every single house within this nation. We have a series of questions to ask about policing: what's good, what's bad, what we are doing well and what we need to do a lot better. That gives us the understanding not only from our local government, which is very engaged, but it also gives us the understanding of the community, and that's the voice we need to listen to.
Again, what they do is that they tell us where we need to improve, but they also give us advice on some of the areas that seep into the justice system—again, where it's more restorative in nature.
I would honestly say that the nation I work for—and humbly work for—is a best practice, but there are multitudes across this country that are doing an excellent job as well.
:
That's an excellent question. I think every organization needs to address it and look at it for what it really is.
Yes, that exists in policing. I was with the RCMP for 24 years prior to coming to the Tsuut'ina Nation Police Service, so I can attest to the importance of recognizing it as the first step. Then it is addressing it, and it comes through.... Again, the component I see as the most important within our service is that approximately 68% of our service officers self-identify as indigenous. Those who don't self-identify as indigenous have a very strong understanding of our community. Our community outreach is part of that understanding of not just indigenous culture but specifically the Tsuut'ina culture, which has its own series of traditions, history, language, all of those things. When you become part of the community or engage with the community, you recognize and understand the importance of respect, and you recognize and understand that you may have different opinions. You may have different thoughts. You have grown up differently, but ultimately the common goal, again, is respect from each other.
As I said, in our instance here, it comes through training and engagement, and I can say that most first nations police services are very reflective of the communities they serve. Perhaps that's not community members. In our case, we have four officers who are from our community, but that poses some challenges as well—to police the community you grew up in. Some people find it very difficult, but we also want to make sure that we are mentoring our community members to consider a profession in policing, because that is where this change will really come into play: when we have more representation in policing.
:
Members, just before we sign off, I need your approval for two proposed study budgets. One is for this one—the current enforcement study—otherwise nobody gets paid, and one is for the upcoming sex trafficking study. They were distributed last Friday. You should have them. Is there anyone opposed to the budgets as they were presented?
Seeing no opposition, we'll assume they are adopted.
We will meet next Tuesday with more enforcement witnesses. On Thursday we have our regular meeting, and since our request to extend the regular meeting was denied for very specific technical reasons, we have an extra one-hour panel with additional enforcement witnesses in the evening, from 6:30 to 7:30.
That being said, I have a motion to adjourn, moved by Mr. Battiste and seconded by Ms. Blaney. Thank you, both.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thanks for a brilliant hour.
The meeting is adjourned.