Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 25 - Evidence - 20 septembre, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 20, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples here in the room or listening via the Web. I would like to acknowledge, for the sake of reconciliation, that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Lillian Dyck, from Saskatchewan, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I will now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right with the deputy chair.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt, Nunavik.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair, senator, Manitoba.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate from Ontario.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis, independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Christmas: Good evening. Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, independent senator for Manitoba.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Tonight, we are meeting under our general order of reference to hear from the commissioners from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Actually, we may find out that this may even be related to our new study with respect to the new nation-to-nation relationship — I’m giving a little heads-up here — how this might be related to what the indigenous nations are when it comes to the role of women.
Tonight, it is our great pleasure and honour to have before us the commissioners from the national inquiry. We have with us: Marion Buller, the Chief Commissioner; Michèle Audette, Commissioner; Brian Eyolfson, Commissioner; and Qajaq Robinson, Commissioner.
As I understand it, Chief Commissioner Buller will make remarks and then the floor will be open to questions from the senators. In that case, then, the other commissioners and/or some of the family members may wish to participate in the answering of questions.
You have the floor, Chief Commissioner Buller.
Marion Buller, Chief Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of this committee. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you to speak about the progress of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. My name is Marion Buller. I’m chief commissioner of the national inquiry. With me today are my fellow commissioners, Michèle Audette, Brian Eyolfson, on my side here, and Qajaq Robinson.We are honoured to be part of the important work of this committee. Thank you.
This is the first time we have appeared before you to report on the work of the national inquiry. We are now a few weeks into the second year of our two-year-and-four-month mandate.
The tragedy of our missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is felt so deeply and painfully by indigenous families, but it is also a painful legacy felt by all Canadians. Parliament and the Prime Minister of Canada have chosen finally to address this terrible legacy. The profound commitment of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is to listen to those who have suffered, to share their stories with Canadians, and to learn what we can do to prevent other families and loved ones from experiencing such suffering.
The national inquiry is not inventing its mission or approach; rather, it has been given a mandate by the government with detailed terms of reference. These terms of reference were written following extensive consultations with indigenous communities, survivors and families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and they strongly inform what the national inquiry wants to accomplish. The terms of reference were adopted by all of the provinces and territories, making this a truly national inquiry.
That said, while fulfilling the mandate given to us by governments, the national inquiry has coalesced around the values and priorities it pursues in the conduct of its work. For example, we want to act in a way that is trauma informed and culturally appropriate. The national inquiry wants to ensure that how it conducts the process leads to healing and the means to shed colonial influences which underlie the social, economic, cultural and institutional problems leading to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.
In fulfilling its mandate, the national inquiry is subject to the structures of working within the federal government. It has to adhere to the human resources, information technology and contracting rules that apply to all areas of the federal government. This national inquiry is not alone in finding these rules frustrating. Constructing the national inquiry was very time-consuming. Simultaneously, stakeholders were expecting urgent engagement and attention to the matters that so deeply concern them.
The good news is that despite the many challenges the national inquiry has experienced, we are on track in getting our staff, offices, technology and networks in place in order to deal with the important substance of our work.
At the same time, the national inquiry research team has done a comprehensive review of related work and has assessed what has been done and not done by governments to follow up on findings and recommendations from that work. It was essential to conduct this assessment so that this national inquiry can take stock, learn from what has worked and what hasn’t, and map out its own areas of emphasis so as to get the most value possible, with its own engagements, reflections and recommendations.
This has been a difficult year and for many people our progress has been too slow. But we wanted to do this right because we know that there are risks associated with doing this work quickly and superficially.
There are four principles that apply to the work of the national inquiry.
One: We want to empower and support people, not re-victimize them. The survivors of violence and the families of the people who have been victimized have undergone tremendous trauma. We are not going into communities and asking people to put themselves at further psychological risk by talking about their experiences unless we are sure that we can provide them with the supports they need. To live up to that commitment, we, as the national inquiry, need policies, staff and internal education. We have put a health team in place, educated national inquiry staff on trauma-related issues, of course, and adopted a trauma-informed approach to our work.
Two: We want to find solutions together and not impose them. Indigenous people in Canada have been subjected to the colonial policies and agendas of the French, English and Canadian governments. For hundreds of years, experts have sought to “solve” the “Indian problem” through a series of imposed solutions. No one ever seriously thought to consult with indigenous people — let alone indigenous women specifically — about missionary work, reserves, the pass system, the Indian Act, forced relocations, residential schools, or the child welfare system, because they did not trust indigenous people to run their own lives.
We want our work to contribute to the resilience and revitalization of indigenous people. We believe that the most effective strategies will come from indigenous communities and nations themselves.
We committed ourselves to identifying and following culturally specific protocols when working with communities. We will ensure we are welcome in communities before we go there. This takes time and effort, but it is essential to engage truly with communities.
Three: We want to include those who need to be heard. The families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls are often left feeling excluded and shut out by the police, the courts, social workers and the media. We define families broadly, by what we term “families of the heart.” That includes foster families, adoptive families and close friends. We recognize the importance of including indigenous women who are LGBTQ, non-binary or two-spirit in our work.
Four: We want to build on the good work already done and not reinvent the wheel. We are not studying indigenous women and girls and LGBTQ2S people; we are studying the systemic causes of violence that they have experienced and the efforts and policies of governments and agencies in response to this violence.
We have analyzed 100 reports containing over 1,200 recommendations. This is the most comprehensive literature review concerning existing reports, studies and articles on violence against indigenous women and girls that has been completed to date.
As commissioners, we have collectively and individually been meeting with and taking advice from survivors, the family members of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and our National Family Advisory Circle. I’m pleased to say we have a member of our National Family Advisory Circle with us this evening: Ms. Laurie Odjick, whose daughter Maisy still remains missing. She is immediately behind me.
We have also taken advice and worked with elders, knowledge keepers, young people, experts, academics and representatives of national, indigenous, local and feminist organizations. Much of this work — consulting, developing policy, hiring and training staff, reviewing and analyzing reports — has gone on behind the scenes. But we are confident that this time and effort has been well spent.
The work of the national inquiry is becoming increasingly public. Throughout the summer our staff members have been visiting communities across Canada. They meet with local residents to prepare for upcoming community hearings. The first of these hearings was held in Whitehorse in late May and early June of this year; 47 people spoke to us in open hearings and an additional 25 people gave statements in private. In August, we held the first of our expert panels, on indigenous laws and decolonizing perspectives. Our interim report will be released at the end of October, as required by our terms of reference.
Turning now to what we have done, Commissioner Audette.
[Translation]
Michèle Audette, Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you, Ms. Buller.
[Editor’s Note: The witness spoke in her native language.]
I would also like to take a few moments to acknowledge the welcome from the Anishinabe Nation. Thank you very much, our brothers and sisters.
You know, right from when the inquiry was established, everyone knew that the mandate we had been asked to take on would be very complex. Everyone knew that, both emotionally and because of the issue itself, it would be no easy task, that we would encounter difficulties and obstacles, and that we would have to do it right. That is something that inspires us every day.
At the same time, if the national inquiry had been restricted to a very limited task, to fly quickly in and out, to hold hasty consultations, in only a few places, in order, basically, to table a report destined to take its place on a shelf like other reports, our mission would have been doomed to failure, and that is not what we wanted.
We know that the issues we are dealing with are much too important for that. These are issues of life and death. Indigenous women and girls have been brutalized, marginalized, and victimized throughout this country’s history. They have suffered discrimination in its laws and in its systems. They have also been destroyed by violence in all its forms: physical, mental, spiritual or emotional.
Those women are still among us. They are standing up for their rights. For a number of decades, those families, those women, have insisted on this inquiry, a national inquiry. They have also spoken out, each time they have felt that the national inquiry on indigenous women and girls was not meeting their needs. I can assure you that they have let us know about it. That is still the case today. It is normal, we had to expect it. Today, we continue to adapt, to amend our ways of doing things so that we respect what the women, the families and the survivors are telling us.
Those who were denied justice, safety and dignity, those whose fundamental rights have been treated with scorn for more than 50 years, deserve encouragement and support in the efforts they are making today to obtain justice, to regain their dignity and to enjoy that safety. Everyone here today, our team, continues to believe that we can make a difference, that we are here as people of goodwill, and that those listening to us, those outside, are continuing to exert pressure. They are also pressuring us for that goodwill to translate into concrete action. If at times you feel pushed around, we believe that the pressure exists for good reason.
[English]
Ms. Buller: Turning next to what we will be doing, looking forward, our work is well under way. In the coming months, we will continue to gather the truth, give life to the truth and honour the truth.
What is gathering the truth? There are three major components to our truth gathering.
First is hearings. The first and most important of these components is providing people with the opportunity to speak with us directly. Community hearings are at the heart of this process. This is where we engage with the survivors of violence, the families of those who have been missing and murdered, their friends and neighbours.
In addition to Whitehorse, we have nine community hearings scheduled to take place across the country over the coming three-and-a-half months. More hearings will follow in 2018.
We are taking a unique approach to our process for community hearings. We go only to communities where we are welcome. We observe and participate in local protocols and ceremonies. Witnesses are not cross-examined. We are all seated on the same level, in a semicircular pattern. Families and survivors may tell us their stories in public or in private, individually or as part of a sharing circle. A family member or survivor may also tell their story privately to a statement taker.
Commissioners take an oath at the beginning of every hearing to promise to listen carefully to the stories. We do not mark exhibits or follow other courtroom-like procedures while the family members or survivors are talking to us.
We will also be holding institutional hearings where we will hear from key organizations, grassroots groups, non-profit organizations, national and local indigenous organizations, and state institutions that include police services and child welfare agencies. We plan to hold at least five of these types of hearings in the new year.
We have begun to bring together experts to provide us and the public with insight on specific issues. As part of our approach, we are defining experts broadly, including families and survivors, elders, traditional knowledge keepers, front-line workers and young people, along with academics and professionals. All of our hearings are open to the public and are available as webcasts, except when a family member or survivor wishes to speak in public.
Second is research. We will continue to review existing research and we have commenced new research. This new work will address gaps in our knowledge, for example, by shedding more light on the experiences of indigenous francophone women, Inuit women and Metis women, and will also address emerging issues such as human trafficking. A central focus of our research plan is the identification of effective, community-driven strategies for mitigating and eliminating violence. Many indigenous communities are doing good work in these areas but lack a national platform to share their success stories.
Third is reviewing records. The national inquiry will continue to review individual cases that survivors and family members raise in the community hearings and, of course, through statement takers. If we have concerns about the way a case was handled, we will make recommendations to the appropriate authorities for further action.
We are also undertaking a systemic review of police cases. Our forensic document committee — made up of both indigenous and non-indigenous experts — will review select files and will identify and propose solutions to systemic problems that they identify, and promote practices to increase the safety and security of indigenous women and girls.
So what is honouring the truth? We will honour the truth through the public education work that we carry out. The central message of our public education work is that every indigenous woman and girl has sacred worth. This principle is reflected in the respect that we will accord them through every aspect of our truth-gathering process. It will play a central role in the reports and educational material that we produce.
Aside from our interim and final reports, we will be producing a variety of public education materials that will target a variety of audiences and age levels, and that will be available, of course, in a range of media and languages.
What is giving life to the truth? We will give life to the truth about indigenous women and girls. Those who have been murdered, who have disappeared, they are gone from us. But we will not allow them to be forgotten. We are working with family members and communities on how best to commemorate and honour those who have been lost.
We are also encouraging individuals to create and submit artistic creations that document the lives of indigenous women and girls. These works of art will form the basis of what we are terming our legacy archive.
In conclusion, Madam Chair and members, the loss of indigenous women and girls to all forms of violence is a national tragedy. It has traumatized generations of families. Shining a light on all the causes of violence, murders and disappearances is a daunting task, but it is necessary. We will expose hard truths about the devastating impacts of colonization, racism and sexism.
The road ahead will continue to be rocky. Indigenous women in Canada, though, are on the move, reclaiming their identities, cultures, languages and land. They are taking their rightful place in their communities and nations and we are ready to support them. All of us can and must act together to create a better future for all indigenous women and girls.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Commissioner Buller. That was a comprehensive overview.
The floor is now open for questions from senators, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Patterson, to be followed by Senator Sinclair.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the address and for being here. We all want this commission to be successful. I’m impressed with the experience you bring to your work, but I do have some questions which involve concerns I’ve heard from my region of Nunavut and from Inuit. By the way, in that connection, I’m very pleased to know that you have experienced Inuit on your staff now. That is great.
I’d like to mention some specific concerns. Our committee well understands what you call a daunting task. We have just finished two studies on housing amongst First Nations on reserves and amongst Inuit Nunangat. We tried to reach out to all the regions with this study. We took 18 months to do the first study on First Nations housing on reserves. We took just over a year to do the second study. I want to express these concerns, but I do understand full well the challenges you are facing.
Here is what I’m hearing from Inuit in Nunavut. I’ll outline them and maybe you could comment on some or all of them.
First, I’m hearing that people still don’t know much about the commission. A majority of people in my region, whose first language is Inuktitut, are unilingual. It is a challenge. I’m told that it would be very helpful to have plain-language information in Inuktitut and English.
You said that you only go to communities where you are welcome. I understand this; you would not want to go to a community where you are not welcome. It seems to be understood so far by communities that they believe they have to formally contact the inquiry and, furthermore, that individuals need to register if they want to be heard. These are seen to be barriers, and perhaps the reasons are not understood.
There are also questions about which Inuit communities will be visited, all Inuit regions, and that goes from Inuvialuit to the huge territory of Nunavut, which is 20 per cent of Canada, to Nunavik, where Senator Watt lives, and all the way to the far northeast of Nunatsiavut. Inuit want to know if all regions will be visited, and if you go to a larger centre, how people from smaller communities can be accommodated.
This is getting specific, but I have some concerns that the first meeting planned for Rankin Inlet in the second week of December is too close to Christmas. Social workers and others may be away or caught up with what Ms. Robinson knows is a major break for many people during a cold, dark winter. That seems to be a little close to Christmas and you may have thoughts on that.
I would like to table those concerns. I have another more specific question, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, I would like to start off by thanking the member for raising the North first as an area for discussion because it is a great concern and priority for us. I will ask Commissioner Robinson to address most of your questions, please.
Qajaq Robinson, Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Senator Patterson for your questions. I’ll do my best to answer with the time I have.
Thank you also for acknowledging and recognizing the challenges in connecting in the North in Inuit Nunangat, including Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In terms of getting to places, access is by plane only. Means of communication are a tremendous challenge; there is poor Internet. There are a number of challenges and the challenges you have acknowledged are the challenges we face.
In terms of community awareness and of the inquiry, we learned through the pre-inquiry that across Canada there have been a number of groups and coalitions that have formed around this issue particularly to speak for change, call for action, particularly in relation to the establishment of the inquiry. This type of mobilization did not happen or has not happened in the same way in Inuit Nunangat. That being said, the rates of violence are unbelievable and there is a need to look at these issues in Inuit Nunangat and Inuit in urban centres. Senator Watt is very aware of the issues of violence and marginalization that Inuit women face in urban centres.
Connecting with the Inuit community is one of our very top priorities because there is not that network that has been established in the same way.
We are building our capacity internally to do that, to connect. As you identified, we have a number of staff. We have an interdisciplinary team of Inuit who are lawyers, researchers, health specialists, all focusing on how we connect with and share this information with Inuit families and survivors to ensure that their voice informs our work and the recommendations that are going to come.
There are challenges around do you welcome, do you register? If we are going to ensure there are health supports, we need to connect with people. The registration mechanism is a way of identifying so we can assure the health supports needed and the networks of support in advance of sharing experiences and advice with us are in place.
But we’ve also heard much of what you have heard. There is this confusion about whether you reach out or are you going to be approached? So part of the work of our outreach team through our community relations team and our health team is to find a way to best connect with Inuit as well as other groups. How do we connect with women who are homeless on the street? How do we connect with women who are in jail? How do we connect with folks that don’t have a phone, don’t have Internet and maybe community radio or a CB radio is the only way? These are challenges that we continue to face, and we are working internally to address those.
I welcome any of your feedback on how you were able to connect in your study on housing, because I’m sure you could provide us with some lessons there.
Issues around plain language, that’s something we are working on as well, to raise the awareness.
I also want to acknowledge that issue around Rankin Inlet is something that has been flagged with us. Our process is family centred. We are looking at the appropriateness of the timing of this and recognizing those concerns, but it’s something we want to bring to the families first.
I thank you for the question.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for the comprehensive answer.
I understood that there was a commitment made when the commission met with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami in February to establish an Inuit Nunangat advisory council which, it seems to me, may help deal with some of these concerns and challenges that we’ve just discussed, which are I guess specific to Inuit Nunangat. You look at Nunavut alone: 25 remote communities, three time zones.
It seems to me that idea could have been helpful to the commission. I think it was committed to in February, and I’m just wondering, is that still under way?
Ms. Robinson: This was a recommendation that flowed from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami through their pre-inquiry engagement, and it was heard loud and clear that to ensure Inuit and Inuit families had a voice that this type of committee would be advantageous. We agree completely, and we are setting up the Inuit advisory committee.
There are also Inuit on the national family advisory committee. I believe there are five or six members representing the Inuvialuit region, Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, as well as urban Inuit. It’s with discussion with them, as well as discussion we will be entering into with ITKand Pauktuutit around the appropriate constitution of the advisory circle, but that is definitely a commitment we stand behind and are actioning as we speak.
Senator Patterson: Very good. Qujannamiik.
Senator Sinclair: I want to begin by acknowledging, commissioners, the difficult task that you have, and the difficult challenges that you face to this point in time. I want to express to you my hope and wishes that you are a hugely successful process that brings us to a point where we understand what has been going on. I want to assure you of my support for the work that you are doing, and know that you can do it better — you know that as well — than any other inquiry has ever done with regard to this because no one has ever really studied this area as much as you are going to, which gets me to a couple of concerns that I have.
Recently, chief commissioner, you indicated publicly that you have formally asked for an extension of the mandate in terms of time, and you specifically said two years, if I remember correctly. If that’s the case, then my question is: Is that going to be enough time, do you think, for you to be able to complete the work that you see for the commission?
Ms. Buller: Thank you, senator, for raising that question. I just have to clarify a few things. It was not me. It was my beautiful colleague, Commissioner Audette. And thank you for confusing her with me.
We have not yet asked the government for an extension for any time period. We are still doing what we call our due diligence in doing a proper analysis so we can present a well-thought-out, well-reasoned, objective request to the government.
Senator Sinclair: Do you think the time that’s left in your mandate is going to be adequate for the work you have to do?
Ms. Buller: That’s the question, isn’t it? We are committed to doing our work well in the time period that we have in our mandate. But we can do a much better job with more time.
Senator Sinclair: One more question, and this has to do with how you can help us. I appreciate the fact that you have your own challenges, but we have ours too. This committee is involved in a study of the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis people and the extent to which it is fulfilling those responsibilities.
Do you see the possibility that your work as a commission might have some impact upon Canada’s understanding of the federal government’s responsibilities or failure to fulfill its responsibilities to indigenous people that might have contributed to the issues that you are now looking at?
Ms. Buller: That question raises a really important part of the work that we are doing and that’s public education. That’s educating the Canadian public about the history, the foundations, the reasons for the violence that continues to exist and that indigenous women and girls experience across Canada.
It also raises a very important part of our terms of reference, of course, to analyze prior research, prior studies that have been done and, as I said in my opening remarks, to see what has and has not happened on the part of governments across Canada.
Ms. Robinson: If I may, Madam Chair, elaborate on that a little bit.
We operate and believe dearly that indigenous women are rights holders to treaty rights, international human rights, constitutional rights, and we are looking at how they’ve been treated in those areas and how their rights have been either upheld or undermined. So I have no doubt that as we look at the legislative frameworks that have responded to or in some cases caused violence, that it will tie into what you are looking at.
The Chair: I’m going to slip in a question here myself to follow up on that line of questioning.
As I mentioned to you, we are starting a new study looking at what a new relationship between Canada and Aboriginal First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples could look like, and you kind of are going into that sphere when you are talking about the role of indigenous women and how they have been treated through the colonial system of government. My question would be: In a new relationship, do you see that this study will shine some light on how you think indigenous women should be included in a new relationship with the Crown?
Ms. Buller: Thank you, Madam Chair. You have raised what our vision is for our work.
Our vision is that there will be a Canada where indigenous women and girls have reclaimed their power and place, not just in the absence of violence but in the active presence and day-to-day lives of indigenous women and girls. That has to be part of the new relationship between indigenous peoples across Canada and Canada.
Senator Pate: Thank you all for coming and for the work you’re doing.
I have many questions, in part because as soon as the public knew we were having this meeting, many of us were inundated with messages about questions that needed to be asked, which leaves an obvious starting point. There is clearly a need for more information to be out to the public and to organizations, individuals and groups about what is happening. So in terms of plans and how you’re moving forward, making those plans available as soon as possible, not just to this committee but also to the public, is very important. I’d like you to address that in response to the question I’m going to ask, and I also will likely want to be on the second round.
We all know that if a process is flawed from the start, the results are likely to also be flawed. So providing an opportunity for us all to see what the actual plan is — I appreciate that you’ve laid out the principles and the stages, but will there be the production of a plan? Given the work that I’ve done historically, I first became aware of these issues in Canada more than three decades ago with the women we knew in prison, who were going missing, as well as family members of women in prison.
Have you made an overall plan and could we have that? Have you made a plan, in particular, of how you will address some of the most marginalized and, in particular, institutionalized, both imprisoned and in other institutions and individuals who are on the street who have a very real interest in this area? How do you plan to make those contacts? What involvement will you be looking at for civil society and non-governmental organizations as well as others who may want to be involved? We’ll start there.
Ms. Buller: Yes, we have a plan. We have a plan that goes right up to the point where, on December 31, 2018, I turn the lights out in the head office and close the door for the last time. You’re very welcome to have a copy of that plan; we’ll make sure you get it.
The most marginalized indigenous women and girls in Canada are of great concern to us, and there are a couple of ways that we intend to reach out to them.
In our terms of reference, we are allowed to use a position called a statement taker. I referred to that type of person or role in my opening statement. That’s a person who can meet one on one with an individual and take their story, anywhere. It doesn’t have to be in a hearing room. It could be in somebody’s kitchen. It could be in a penitentiary. It could be in a drop-in centre. It could be someplace safe for street-involved indigenous women and girls to go.
We’ve heard already from people who are in the sex trade, people who are in prisons, who have written to us, indigenous women and girls who are marginalized by way of their gender selection or gender preferences. It’s just not safe for them to come to a community hearing. We also know from women in some communities that they’re not able to speak out in their home communities. So we have this great opportunity to reach out in ways that have never been reached out before in Canada, so individuals can go to locations, take statements privately and in a secure way and without a commissioner present, lawyers present, media, translation, all of our staff. They’re not there. It’s one on one, as if you’re having a conversation at my kitchen table over a cup of tea.
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: I would like to add a very important comment about the work that we do every day. This summer, we went through a difficult period; everyone saw it in the media. We understand. We see it from the inside. It brought about a different way of doing things in our teams and in our units in legal matters, in research, in health, and in relations with the community. We have brought about a change, because we began with 400 registrations from individuals, survivors and families, and we now have 735 registrations in the span of a few weeks.
So, we are turning the corner. Change is being made. Since last September, we have met with thousands of people from community groups, coalitions, discussion groups and leadership groups. They have fueled, and continue to fuel, our work, making sure that we reach the most vulnerable and also that, in our research, our reports and our recommendations, the people who were thoroughly forgotten, play a role in changing society.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you for that.
I know that a number of women inside, women prisoners as well as, just recently, a woman in a psychiatric hospital, indicated that they would love to see your presence in addition to being able to talk to someone privately. I would urge you to consider a plan that would allow at least some of you to visit and open those events to allow people to know what the plan is and how you plan to use the information before sending in note takers.
Senator McPhedran: I want to add my expression of appreciation to each and every one of you on the commission and also for the teams that are supporting your work. As I mentioned to you, Chief Commissioner Buller, I also have chaired some inquiries, and you have both my respect and my empathy. It’s a very challenging task.
I’m going to ask a difficult question. I recognize in advance of that question that there may be some significant limitations on what you’re able to share. In a way, this is a compilation of a number of questions that were sent in from different organizations when they discovered that you were going to be here with us this evening. Obviously, we can’t ask all of those questions, so I’m trying to roll them into a question that really comes to the matter of the implementation of your excellent vision and desire to conduct this inquiry in a way that brings, in the words of you and your colleagues on the commission, the results that bring about much greater justice.
In order to do that, we have to have the machinery, and, in order to have the mechanisms for an inquiry of this complexity, there has to be funding. There also have to be guidelines and rules that allow the commission to change course as needed, to respond as needed, to be able to in certain circumstances reallocate resources, find additional resources. So my question — and I do confess that this comes out of personal experience with government-funded inquiries in my own life — is whether you feel that you have the framework from the external administrative supports, i.e., government supports, be it the Privy Council Office, wherever they are coming from. Are they adequate? Is there more that you need? If there is, what is the nature of that? Are you being constrained by rules and guidelines that operate quite well within a typical bureaucracy but don’t operate nearly as well for the kind of work that you’ve been asked to do for us? And is there anything that you wish to share with us about a vision for any changes that would allow you to move forward more along the lines of what we’re hearing tonight?
Ms. Buller: Senator, your questions have raised an area of great concern for us. To be very blunt and very honest, because we’re bound by government policies and procedures for spending, for information technology, information management and human resources, we are constrained. The policies and procedures, I suppose — I’m no expert in this area — work very well in government that runs on a day-to-day, year-to-year basis. But those same policies and procedures — and I understand why they’re in place — do not work well in a setting that we’re in, where we have a limited time period in order to do our work.
For example, it may not cause particular discomfort to a government minister or ministry or department to take four to six months to hire someone, but for us, six months is about 20 per cent of our total lifetime. Those policies and procedures work, I suppose, very well in government, but they do not work well for an inquiry.
I have ideas about ways of changing the policies and procedures for inquiries, and I’m happy to share those with government, if and when they ever ask. Our timeline is so tight, the clock is constantly ticking. If we lose a week, it’s like another government department losing a month or six months, and we can’t get that time back. It isn’t necessarily a matter of more framework; it’s a matter of understanding time — the time it takes and the time that we don’t have to spend waiting and following specific policies and programs.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for the work you’re doing. I truly appreciate how difficult it must be and I think you know that this committee supports your efforts 100 per cent .
I have a couple of questions. First, could you give us more information on what you’ve learned from the comprehensive literature review that you’ve done on reports? Is there anything that comes to mind? Are there any commonalities between the different groups and the different types of situations that you can learn from? I think we all get frustrated when we study and study and don’t really come up with answers. I know there have been many recommendations already. Is there a commonality between them, something you can glean and put forward at this time, or are you still analyzing them?
Ms. Buller: The comprehensive literature is ongoing at different levels of investigation and review. Without getting too much ahead of our interim report, what we have seen in the literature are commonalities or common themes. Those themes include the impact of poverty, the intergenerational impact of residential schools, the impact of family breakdown and community breakdown, the impact of ill health and the impact of geographical isolation and service delivery. Those are some of the themes that I can tell you now.
Senator Raine: My other question is with regard to human trafficking, which you mentioned as something you would look into. Do you intend to reach out to the Soroptimist organization, which has had for at least 10 years now an ongoing campaign to stop trafficking? They’ve done a tremendous amount of work in this field, so I wonder if you’d reach out to them.
Ms. Buller: We certainly know who they are and we have them on our list of resources. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I have one quick follow-up to Senator Raine’s questions on research. Do you have a summary or a report that you’ve posted on your website that would contain what you’ve learned so far on the research?
Ms. Buller: I don’t mean to be disrespectful. However, you’ll have to wait for our interim report.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Watt: If you don’t mind, I’m going to be asking questions of Qajaq in Inuktitut. I think I’m entitled to do that.
The Chair: Feel free to do so.
[Editor’s Note: Senator Watt and Ms. Robinson spoke in Inuktitut.]
Senator Watt: Just one more.
The Chair: Senator Watt, could you do it on the second round?
Senator Watt: If there is a second round, I’d appreciate that.
The Chair: Could you summarize the conversation? Otherwise, it won’t be part of our official record.
Senator Watt: Would you be able to summarize your response?
Ms. Robinson: Yes.
Senator Watt: Basically, my concern is who are the people involved in your mandate? Mainly focusing on the existing birthright corporations, because I tend to think that the birthright corporations have responsibility in the field you’re dealing with. If they are excluded, not being communicated with, you will have a great deal of difficulty reaching out to the members of those birthright corporations. I think you, too, have a part of that. That’s one of the reasons I asked Qajaq this question: What kind of arrangement do you have with the community-based organizations? Are they involved? In a nutshell, that was my first question.
Ms. Robinson: My response, through our community relations department, we are working on building relationships. We have one employee within our community relations department whose focus is on those relationships, particularly with the birthright organizations, the land claims organizations with Inuit Nunangat. But this is also work that’s done by other members of our team, including members of our legal team and our health team and research.
There’s also participation through standing. I didn’t get a chance to explain that fully in Inuktitut. There are members of birthright organizations in Nunatsiavut government, ITK, who have standing. So there’s involvement that way.
Senator Watt: The third question that I asked is this: Knowing the fact that you can’t really do anything today in the modern world unless you have money, are you satisfied with the kind of money that you have at your disposal, that you feel that you can work with, and also have an exchange back and forth between the community-based organizations and your organization?
Ms. Robinson: And my response was we’re committed to doing what we can with what we’ve got, recognizing that with more time comes the issue of the costs associated with it.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Good evening to you all. First of all, I would like to acknowledge Laurie Odjick, who is from my community of Kitigan Zibi, and is also a residential school survivor, and Roméo Saganash, a New Democrat member of Parliament. It is good to have some participation from the NDP in the Senate.
[English]
Obviously it’s no secret that the work you do is tough, hard and challenging. We all heard about the challenges that the inquiry underwent in the last couple of weeks this summer. I don’t want to get into that, but I think for our purposes and those watching and for those affected by the work of the inquiry and your work, I ask in a positive way not in a negative way, can you commit to us that you will all remain strong, intact and do the work that you need to do to make sure that there is success in this inquiry? What this inquiry and yourselves as commissioners need is stability. Again, I ask this in a positive way: Are you able to commit to us tonight that you are in fact committed to this process until the end?
Ms. Buller: If I might, I’d like to answer for myself and then invite my fellow commissioners to answer for themselves.
Senator, thank you for asking that question. I had I don’t know how many hours of arguments with myself when I was first approached to take this position about whether I should or should not and what the advantages, disadvantages would be and really what my commitment would be because I knew for the lifetime of this national inquiry there would be no vacations. I would never be disconnected from the Internet and my BlackBerry. I knew it would be non-stop work for the life of the inquiry and it would be hard work.
When I gave my commitment to the minister and the Prime Minister and took on the appointment, I was firm in my mind then that I was going to see this to the end. I remain as firm today as I did the day I took this appointment. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
Brian Eyolfson, Commissioner, National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for asking that question.
I also took on this role with a very strong commitment to see it through. I knew it would be challenging, there is no doubt about that, but I’m very committed to it. I am very honoured to work with these wonderful colleagues to my left. We’re a great team, we work well together, and I’m very confident we can see this through to the end. Thank you.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you.
Ms. Robinson: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, for your question.
I too struggled a lot after I received that call. I have a little boy. The implications for him over the next few years were something that weighed on me. The implications for his lifetime weighed heavier, so I took on this role.
I was firm in my commitment then, even with the challenges and controversy. I’ll acknowledge that, but I’ve met a lot of families across this country since I started.
I received as a gift, from the grandmothers of the Haida Gwaii Nation, my first ever eagle feather, a tremendous gift. I have had families look at me and say, “We don’t get to quit; we don’t get to walk away from this,” and I don’t either. So I’m as firm today as I was the day I said yes and until our clock stops. Then, when that’s done, I’ll be able to put on different shoes, and that will be another conversation.
[Translation]
Ms. Audette: I like your question very much, Senator Brazeau. We often imagine that commissioners are cold and have to remain cold. But here you have four people who are sensitive, but very steadfast for a number of reasons. You have a very different kind of leadership before you. It is what gives this inquiry its strength.
I cannot promise you that the inquiry will remain stable. As a mother of five children and a new grandmother as of eight weeks ago, I know that there are highs and lows in a family, and that is the case in my new family, the national inquiry, for reasons that are natural and part of life. With our strength, with my strength, my will and my determination, I continue to get up each morning and tell myself that I am doing it for my daughters and my sons. I am also doing it for my niece, who is a victim. I am doing it for Laurie, for the thousands of women and men affected by the issue, and also for Canadians. This is a societal issue that affects everyone.
Senator, I should also tell you that I would really like to remain unaffected, but it is impossible. Listening every day to the testimony, the tragedies, the difficulties, the injustice, perhaps awakens certain things or ignites the determination. Sometimes, I am discouraged and tired, because I am human and also a mom, a wife and a friend. I turn to my spirituality, my emotional, spiritual, physical and mental health. Yes, I need psychosocial help. I am not afraid, I seek out that help. I also look for help to an elder of mine, my grandmother. If one is not enough, there are a lot of grandmothers across Canada. It is one way to make sure every day that you can go through this experience and ensure that, when you submit a report, you will have gone through it with all five senses. I will also be able to say that, when the clock strikes midnight, when our commissioner’s mandate is over, I will put on my free woman’s moccasins again. Then, my friend Qajaq and I will talk of other things.
[English]
Senator Brazeau: My second question is short but in two parts. Obviously the mandate that you were given has been given by the current government, so my question is the following: Are you confident, satisfied and comfortable with the mandate you’ve been given, number one; and, number two, have you heard anything from the victims or the families of the victims as to what could be done to improve upon that mandate?
Ms. Buller: I think we can say that we are satisfied with the mandate because we knew it going in when we started; we knew what the mandate was. I don’t think any of us here would have started this job if we weren’t satisfied with the mandate.
Hearing from families and survivors, yes, we hear from them very often about how we can do our work better. We listen to them, and we take their advice. They give a whole new dimension to the work we do, and it’s a wonderful dimension. We would do far less valuable work without them.
Senator Boniface: Thank you very much for the work you are doing. This is a monumental task you have been assigned. I have been part of an inquiry on a much smaller scale, so I understand how difficult this is. I appreciate the comments you’ve made this evening.
I’m from Ontario and am particularly interested in how you’re able to meet the needs in remote communities, particularly northwest, the Nishnawbe Aski area, as an example. First, I’m interested in more information on that, particularly because you identify as one of the challenges the geographical isolation, which in my former life I have had exposure to.
Secondly, in that process, are you able to assist financially in any way that helps to facilitate those from remote communities to be part of this process?
Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Senator Boniface.
In terms of reaching out to remote communities, one of the things we have, of course, is our community relations team. We have people on the ground, for example, in Ontario who have been visiting different parts of the province. We’re having a community hearing for families and survivors in Thunder Bay in October, I believe, and we’ve had a team of people go to that area and make connections with grassroots organizations, indigenous organizations, governments, families and survivors. We’ve had contact, for example, with representatives of Grand Council Treaty 3 and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, and we will be looking, as well, at other places we can hold hearings in the new year, in 2018, not only in Ontario but in other places across Canada. These are things we are exploring, and we are making those connections on the ground.
Senator Boniface: If I can just follow up in terms of the second piece of my question, in the event, for instance, in Thunder Bay, if you were holding hearings, are you in a position to assist people to be able to travel, given the expense of travelling for families?
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, if I can address that, yes, we are able to help families financially with travel expenses to and from the hearing location. But we also have statement takers who can go to smaller communities so that people aren’t disrupted from their daily lives. As much as I don’t really understand it all, there are ways through technology, through the Internet, that we can — assuming, for the moment, that there is Internet service — take statements through the Internet. But I can’t really speak to that very well.
Senator Boniface: I understand. I think probably as much as you do about how it’s done, but I know what the outcome is. The caution, of course, is to make sure, for victims, that they have support at their home location because, within the community, the resources available to them are incredibly small.
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, we had some interesting lessons from the pre-inquiry process about how important it is, especially when you are bringing people in from remote communities, that they have the proper support while they are travelling to the hearing, or, in that case, pre-inquiry consultations, at the pre-inquiry consultation and then back to their own community, even if it just meant a support person on the plane with them back to make sure they got home safely. We are learning, and have learned, just how critical that is to our work.
Senator Pate: Could I ask a supplementary to that?
The Chair: Yes, a short one.
Senator Pate: I have a question related to that in terms of the statement takers, particularly in prisons as well as remote communities, not only the support people. Are there indigenous women going in who are the statement takers? Perhaps you can give us some idea of that.
As well, how are you ensuring there is no retaliation? I can think of, for instance, in a prison setting that when someone becomes emotional, it dredges up all kinds of issues, and then they are put in segregation because of their behaviour. They may end up also experiencing retaliation for reporting incidents that may have involved prison staff or police at different times.
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, I’ll answer the first question first.
Who are the statement takers? They come from a variety of backgrounds. When we finish our hiring, I think most will be indigenous but not all. By the time we finish our hiring and training, we will have many who are indigenous-language speakers. They’ll come from a variety of backgrounds: rural, urban. I’m thinking of the statement takers we have on board already.
What is important, too, is that we are able to give families and survivors choice because there may be some people who would prefer to speak to someone in their own language. There may be some people who will prefer a statement taker who is older or younger. We’re trying to provide a good basis for choice for family members.
Now, the second question about retaliation, that is very important to us. When I mentioned earlier about finding safe places, drop-in centres, that sort of thing for sex-trade workers who, of course, don’t necessarily want to be identified and who also have a variety of security concerns, we’re mindful of that and looking for locations where they’ll feel safe.
For women who are incarcerated, that presents a whole other layer of challenges for us that we’ve already been able to identify and, in many, cases address. That’s the security issue. That’s the health care before, during and after, because we do have limitations on the health care that we can provide in a secure setting like a penitentiary or provincial prison.
So in working ahead before we start speaking to prisoners, incarcerated women across Canada, we have to be very clear that we have the health supports in place for them, that we have the safety net for them in a way that’s appropriate for them given their secure locations.
I should just explain that our health follow-up is over a three-month period. We’re hoping that in prisons and penitentiaries we will be able to do that three-month follow-up with prisoners, because we fully expect there will be breakdowns and other behavioural issues. We have a moral obligation, I think, to be able to properly support those people in very difficult circumstances.
Senator Pate: If we could get details of those plans as well, because if there are in-house people, that would add to the challenges for witnesses.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for all for being here. You have my support and sincere admiration for the work that you are undertaking.
I listened very carefully to the discussion around your work plans and the various elements, and the discussion that runs through everything about getting to the truth and in some cases the hard truth, which is vitally important if we are going to have meaningful recommendations and then actions that will go beyond the other elements of the work that you are doing that are also important, of the healing and the opportunities for people to come and share their experiences.
I was struck by a question, and I hope it’s not taken as anything other than curiosity. As you shape your recommendations and you look at the truth and going through hearings but also doing research, what consideration have you given, if any, in terms of how you’re going to approach the full 360-degree truth which occurs to me needs to somehow involve some research around the perpetrators? How do you intend to gather that truth, because surely that must help inform the recommendations that you are going to make. I’m curious to know, if that is not part of the work plan, would it be part of the work plan if you had more time?
Ms. Buller: I agree that you’re right about the 360-degree truth and understanding perpetrators and their motivations and their actions. How we’ll get to that particular truth will be through two major ways. One will be hearing from the families and the survivors in community hearings.
When we were in Whitehorse, we started to hear more details about the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. It takes a while for that to come out in a story that a family is telling us, but we are starting to get that in a very concrete way because we hear about the whole family, which is wonderful.
There is also a great deal of research that has already been done on men who are violent toward women, and we can draw on that research that has already done as well.
I agree, senator, that you have raised an important point, the 360-degree view.
Senator Christmas: First, let me express my own and, no doubt, others’ appreciation for your courage and your determination in doing this work. I think this is probably difficult work in normal circumstances, but what you are doing is obviously anything but normal. I also want to thank you and your families and loved ones for lending you to the task of this inquiry. No doubt there is a sacrifice on their part, and I wish to honour and acknowledge your loved ones and families.
Our chair mentioned earlier that this inquiry is like a bright light shining in a very dark place. Chief commissioner, you mentioned that no doubt there are people who may be implicated or affected as “perpetuators” and others by this inquiry. It leads me to this question, and I know you’ve already commented somewhat on this: How does the inquiry plan to protect families and survivors before, during and after their testimony when they may have lost a loved one to violence, being human trafficking or maybe even gang violence? How do you protect those families and survivors when they come before you?
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, Commissioner Eyolfson will answer that question.
Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, senator.
Our health team is a really important part of our team. When families and survivors who want to engage with the inquiry make contact with the inquiry, health is the first team that contacts them and assesses what the situation is and what the needs are. There can be an assessment of what they may have in terms of existing supports, what may exist in the communities or what supports may need to be added and, of course, what their particular preference is.
There is a full assessment of what their health needs are going forward before they participate, if they choose to participate. Also, health supports can be made present during their sharing of their story as well as afterwards.
Our health team will engage in an aftercare plan to support those families and may also look at things like whether or not they feel safe telling their story in a particular community or environment. Do they need to go elsewhere? Is there a preference to speak to a statement taker in private as opposed to in public? All of these things are considered and discussed with them.
Senator Christmas: To follow up on that, I was more focused on, yes, there is a serious issue with a person’s mental health. I see that. However, I was more concerned about their personal safety. How will the inquiry address the issue of the personal safety of families and survivors?
Ms. Buller: We’ve considered personal safety very carefully, for everyone who attends a hearing — sometimes ourselves even. For families and survivors, it’s important to provide them with a safe place, to start.
As Commissioner Eyolfson said, there may be families and survivors who do not — and for good reason — feel safe speaking in public, do not feel safe speaking to one of us, and may want to speak to one of us in private.
We’re also mindful of giving people the opportunity to talk to us, what I call off-site; in other words, rather than coming to a hearing location or a town where we’re holding a hearing, a statement taker may be able to go to their home community. But we also know that a lot of women and girls do not have a safe voice in their home communities. We can provide them with the opportunity and expense money, that sort of thing, to give their statements outside of their home communities.
Also, we’re finding that we’re getting statements that are coming in by mail. People are writing letters to us outlining the difficulties they’ve faced as survivors of violence or as family members who have lost loved ones. We can take that type of evidence, those types of statements, in a number of ways, but their physical safety is very important to us. We want to provide safe options for people who want to talk to us.
The Chair: We have just over 10 minutes left and we have six senators, so if we could one short question, starting with Senator Sinclair.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you for that challenge, Madam Chair. I appreciate the confidence.
I want to ask — because it hasn’t been asked yet, and I don’t know that we’ve had any public discussion around this issue — what numbers do you think will come out at the end? How many victims are we potentially talking about here? Numbers have been thrown around early on before the inquiry of 1,200 potential names, but my view always was that it was a lot more than that. But I have no basis for it beyond what we heard through the process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Do you have any better idea now than when you started?
Ms. Buller: Madam chair, could Commissioner Eyolfson answer that?
The Chair: Please.
Mr. Eyolfson: Thank you, Senator Sinclair, for the question.
We’re all aware there are a number of reports of different numbers or studies suggesting there are different numbers of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. We’re looking at those reports and studies that have been done. That is part of our research plan.
Of course, we are approaching it in terms of people registering with us who want to tell stories, so it’s not necessarily the same number. We’re having families come forward. We are noticing that recently the number of people coming forward wanting to tell stories about lost loved ones is growing rapidly. I think we had up to about 735 registrants at the end of last week. That’s where we’re at right now.
Senator Pate: When Senator Sinclair, as he then was not, did the investigation into the death of Helen Betty Osborne and from then forward, we know that many of the issues around violence against indigenous women involve systemic issues of, obviously, racism, that you’re alive to, but also the systemic issues of how police and many others within the community and the system have dealt with sexualized violence and exploitation, particularly of indigenous women and girls. I noted that recently, chief commissioner, you were quoted as saying that you are looking at police issues. We’re also getting lots of questions and suggestions that some police issues will be looked at but not others.
Could you please outline what exactly you are looking at in terms of police activities, police systemic issues related to police biases and investigations? I understand you have forensic team members who are looking at this. Who are they and what will they be doing? To what extent will you be examining police files? How do you look at providing that information for the public, and will that be part of the plan that I asked about in one of my earlier questions?
Senator Sinclair: That was five questions.
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all, but I thought this was the short, snapper round.
Ms. Audette: Choose one.
Ms. Buller: We’ve always intended to review policing, and I think I can put it fairly succinctly. We will be investigating investigations.
Now, turning to our forensic review panel, we are still in the process of requesting and receiving sample files from various police agencies across Canada. I’m very happy to report, Madam Chair, that police agencies across Canada so far have been cooperative with us.
That being said, a forensic team will be reviewing those files for competency of investigations, obvious mistakes, policy, the impact of policy — a variety of issues. Of course, it will depend to a certain extent on the type of file that’s forwarded to us and the type of forensic review that will happen. I think that might go without saying.
Who is on that team? Right now, we have assembled a team that includes Crown counsel, defence, a forensic interviewer and an expert in police investigation. We are trying to persuade, gently, an elder to assist us in reviewing those files. I hope, with the greatest respect, that I haven’t missed anybody or left anyone out. I’m doing it from memory. Their findings will be part of our final report.
Senator McPhedran: The last two days, and today, there was a national meeting of the Gender Equality Network Canada, and a consensus that came out this afternoon forms the basis of my question to you. At that network closing this afternoon, the following statement was released. I shared that with you, madam chief commissioner. It says: “As the national network on gender equality, we stand in solidarity with the indigenous women and ask that the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls be reset.”
My question is in that context. I want to commend each and every one of you for the responses you made to the more general question as to your continuing, but my question is specific to the regionalization of what you’re looking at. You’re a national inquiry, but as part of what you’ve learned so far, are you looking at the idea of a regional sub-commission or focusing in regionally in some way?
As part of that, we need to come back to this recurring question from many angles that we’ve been asking you: Are you looking at an extension? I was caught, chief commissioner, by your statement that your plan is to turn the lights out December 31, 2018. Somehow that doesn’t mesh with our questions about extension. Could you address that, please?
Ms. Buller: Yes. I’ll answer the last question first about extension. Thank you for that.
2018 is still our last day until the government says otherwise, so we have to plan accordingly. I suppose as more of a rhetorical question and answer, what if the government said “no”? We still have to be prepared to finish our work on time. So until the government says otherwise, on December 31, 2018, we’ll be turning the key and turning the lights off.
Now, regionalization and regional focus is becoming increasingly important. The question of a sub-commission has arisen, and the short answer is this: We don’t have the legal authority to appoint commissioners to conduct a regional or provincial or territorial sub-commission or a commission to run on its own. Only government can do that; we can’t.
But we certainly recognize the importance of regional responses because we do know that what works in the Prairies does not necessarily work in the North. The issues on the West Coast, where I live, facing indigenous women and girls are not necessarily the same as the issues that indigenous women and girls are facing in southern Ontario. We know that. So we know that we have to address our work on a more regional basis, and we’re doing that.
Senator Watt: I guess it comes in handy that my question will be an extension to the fact that you mentioned that issue.
I’m pretty sure that you’re aware that on February 17, 2017, the Prime Minister made a statement and gave the designated responsibility to seven ministers to review the policy of the government. I think you’re aware of that?
Ms. Buller: Yes.
Senator Watt: I’d like to put forward a possible recommendation that you can think about.
Before the deadline arrives, maybe there is time for you to knock on the door, either the Prime Minister himself or get in touch with those seven ministers, to revise the terms of reference that were given to you — in other words, a directive — and change them according to the way you see fit. Would you be prepared to do that? In other words, it’s related to the extension and also more money would have to be discussed.
It’s an opportunity for you to move that forward, if you are thinking in terms of activating the regional instrument that you feel you don’t have. I think the opportunity is here, and I think this committee can support you, in writing, with a recommendation coming from us. I think you don’t have that much time and you have to make that move quickly. If you don’t try, you’ll never know.
The Chair: Do you have a further comment or question for Senator Watt, chief commissioner?
Ms. Buller: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Audette will reply.
Ms. Audette: It is clear for us that if there is support coming from here, it’s going to help. It’s not for the four of us but for the indigenous women, the families and the survivors. So we have to think why we’re doing this, why the support. At the end of the day, it’s for them.
Senator Watt: We might be able to do a bit more than just support; maybe we will even help you to negotiate the deal.
Ms. Audette: That belongs to you.
The Chair: I think Senator Watt has committed us all to undertaking some things that we shall have to discuss as a committee.
One thing I would say before we give Senator Boniface the last question is this idea of regionalization. You’ve touched on it. I think it’s an incredibly important aspect. We do know even from the RCMP report that certain areas of the country are much more prone to higher victimization than the Prairies. The dynamics there are very different than what they are in British Columbia, for example. So I support that concept of having regional specificity.
With that, we shall turn to Senator Boniface for the last question.
Senator Boniface: Thank you. This is a bigger question, so I’m going to try to make it nice and tight.
I know you’ll look at the issues of policing. I’m sure we’ll learn a great deal from that, and that’s part of the benefit of your process for people doing that work. But I would ask you not to ignore the indigenous police services that are out there, particularly on the issue of how they are funded and the expectations that will be put on them when you’re long gone and they’re holding responsibility, because they are chronically underfunded. This was identified in a number of reports, including the Ipperwash inquiry. Given the work they will have to do going forward and the work they do today, you have an opportunity to flag once again for governments the importance of the work they do and the new aspects they can bring to policing based on some of the recommendations you make. I would just ask you to consider that.
Ms. Buller: Madam Chair, I would like to point out that indigenous policing is on our agenda, not only from the perspective of funding and society’s expectations but also jurisdiction.
Senator Boniface: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you very much to the chief commissioner and her three accompanying commissioners for appearing tonight. The national inquiry is an issue that has gained public attention across the country, and I think most Canadians are actively engaged with this and wishing you the best of success because it is a problem we have faced as a country in which we are putting our hopes and prayers with you to find good recommendations and solutions.
Senators and commissioners, don’t leave. We would like to have a group photo. Please stay around for that. Communications is here to help us with that.
On behalf of all the senators and our listening and viewing public, once again, I thank you for your appearance tonight.
(The committee adjourned.)