The committee met at 9:08 a.m.

[D. Davies in the chair.]

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’d like to welcome everybody to today’s meeting. My name is Dan Davies. I’m the Deputy Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. I’m also the MLA for Peace River North.

This is the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I’m grateful to be joining today’s meeting from the traditional territory of the Dane-zaa.

I’d like to welcome all of those who are listening to and participating in this meeting.

This committee has been tasked with undertaking a broad inquiry with respect to policing and public safety in British Columbia. We are taking a phased approach to this work and have several presentations with subject-matter experts, community advocacy organizations, Indigenous communities and others scheduled over the next several weeks.

We’ve also invited British Columbians to provide written submissions beginning Monday, March 1. We will review those submissions with a view to inviting individuals and organizations to present to the committee at a later date. Further details on how to participate are available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/rpa. The deadline for written submissions is 5 p.m. on Friday, April 30. In addition, opportunities to participate will be available at a later phase of the consultation.

The meeting format for these meetings. Presenters have been organized into four small panels. Today we will be hearing from representatives from four Indigenous communities. Each presenter has 15 minutes for their presentation, and we kindly ask that all presenters be respectful of the time limit.

[9:10 a.m.]

Following the presentations from the panel, there will be time for questions from the committee members. At that time, I ask that members raise their hands and indicate that they have a question. I’ll be keeping a speakers list.

I also ask that everyone please put themselves on mute and wait until you’re recognized before speaking.

All audio from our meeting is broadcast live on our website. A complete transcript will also be posted.

I’ll now ask that each of our members of the committee introduce themselves to the panel. I’ll start with Rachna.

R. Singh: Thank you so much, Chair.

Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

G. Begg: Good morning, everyone. I’m Garry Begg, the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

A. Olsen: Good morning. My name is Adam Olsen. I am the MLA representing the W̱SÁNEĆ territory, Saanich North and the Islands.

T. Halford: Trevor Halford, the MLA for Surrey–White Rock.

H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. I’m Harwinder Sandhu, the MLA for Vernon-Monashee.

R. Glumac: Good morning. Rick Glumac, the MLA for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Billy Young from Hansard Services. Thank you.

I’ll now call on members of the Musqueam Indian Band, Coun. Tammy Harkey and Coun. Allyson Fraser.

I’ll turn the floor over to you. Thank you very much for joining us. The floor is yours.

Presentations on Police Act

MUSQUEAM INDIAN BAND

A. Fraser: I’m Allyson Fraser. I’ve been with the Musqueam Indian Band, on council, for the past 20-plus years. I also work in the property tax and legal department within the Musqueam administration.

Musqueam has a population that is approximately 1,500-plus. Half live on reserve and half off. Also, there is a significant non-Indigenous population living on leasehold lands that we have developed, just right across the street. They’re great neighbours.

Over the last 40 years, Musqueam has brought numerous legal actions against the federal and provincial governments to protect our interest in lands and the fishery in the Fraser River. Some of these cases have gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and set the foundational principles of Indigenous rights law in Canada. These principles have set the table for negotiations with the federal and provincial governments, which has resulted in agreements that have produced benefits for our membership.

We have a contract with the city of Vancouver for the provision to our reserve of most municipal services, including policing from VPD. We pay a substantial sum of approximately $400,000, plus in-kind costs and other administrative costs.

VPD provides us with one liaison officer who is present most days at our administration office and who deals with concerns brought to him by our members. The kinds of services he provides are comparable to those provided in a community policing office. Although we pay for this officer, he does not answer to us. His boss is the Vancouver police department.

In addition, we have developed a community safety patrol that patrols the community and is available to act as a liaison to VPD officers when they are called to the reserve. This liaison service is seldom used by officers who are called, even though they could provide important information about the situation they have been called to deal with.

[9:15 a.m.]

Before COVID happened, two of our council members met with the VPD chief on a monthly basis to discuss issues and concerns. This is no longer happening, even though we’re able to have virtual meetings. We would like to see this start up again. I think it helps with communication, voicing issues of concern and coming to consensus on how we can better the services for our community.

While significant improvements have been made, much remains to be done. We need to improve communication between the VPD and Musqueam at all levels. More needs to be done so that individual officers know more about the community they are policing. This can only happen if we have Musqueam members, maybe on ride-alongs or something, that can assist in teaching our traditional and cultural ways and actually providing information about community members, information that may help with situations that arise on the reserve.

Unfortunately, while there are many good officers, there are some who seem to have very negative attitudes towards our members. These officers end up causing far more problems than the one that they were called to deal with in the first place.

The most serious problem they cause is the lack of public trust. Indigenous People require a court system that recognizes our bylaws and officers who can enforce those bylaws. Right now when we’re called and we have certain situations…. There are often times when you can’t address some of the smallest of issues because our bylaws don’t apply.

The Musqueam would hope that this committee will make recommendations that are directed at dealing with the systemic racism that impacts policing everywhere and detrimentally affects the lives of Indigenous persons, Black people and other minorities. Since police departments adhere to a military structure, one must ask whether these racist beliefs and attitudes exist at the highest levels. Also, the power of police units may be another obstacle to real, progressive change.

That’s what I have for my portion of the report. I’ll pass it over to my colleague Tammy Harkey.

T. Harkey: Thank you, Allyson.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this really important matter.

My role for the Musqueam Indian Band is as a senior councillor. I am the chair of community services. So work areas that address health, education, employment and training, all of the social factors that help to create wellness for members in the community. In my day-to-day personal life, I would say that I and my co-council Allyson are strong advocates for social change for women, children and families. So I’m honoured to be here and to offer my voice.

I think the premise that I understand in my community, to kind of frame all things that we do, is around relationship. It’s critical to us — to how we function, to how we do business, to how we engage. When we think about that and the role of policing in our community, perhaps, to me, that is…. The ongoing, consistent, constant flaw is that we don’t have a relationship, or it’s one-directional. We don’t have a true, genuine, authentic opportunity to have a voice but small moments like this. We parachute it out, and we hope for the best.

For me, I think…. I’m a believer that we need to name things. We need to put a name on things. When we can name things, we have the ability to, perhaps, inform the change, to address matters that aren’t working, flaws.

As Allyson pointed out, racism exists strongly within the VPD. We see it. We witness it. We feel it. We hear it from the community. That’s our truth, and I think that’s critically important — that that is our truth. We can speak to some of the small changes and improvements that we have made and that we have driven, as the community, to help inform how police officers support and protect our community.

[9:20 a.m.]

I think our shared responsibility is to address systemic racism, to address the law that directly affects us as a people, by community, the Musqueam community. I think we have to look at the manner in which enforcement happens.

Everyone knows and everyone can follow about the mental health checks and how Indigenous People use the system, which is supposed to be there to support and protect them, as a last resort. In our experience, more often than not, those are unhealthy and unsafe mechanisms to lean upon. That leaves us very vulnerable, as a people.

As well, for me, I think that there’s a critical importance to look at the ways that the VPD are monitored, or the supervision of the officers, as individuals under one sort of umbrella. We know…. I can name names of individuals that are very good officers. I really can. I know them, and they’re my friends. I don’t know that there’s enough supervision of the day-to-day behaviours that have a long-term impact on community members here, specifically in Musqueam.

I think that, ultimately, we need to create space for my community to authentically inform those services set out to protect us. I would say that as a partner in this community we call Vancouver, we are ready, and have been for a long time, to be players and partners in this work to ensure that our community members begin to find trust and comfort in being able to reach out for emergency services, when needed.

Like Allyson said, as of recently, we can name incidents that were unhealthy, the wrong response and a really strong breakdown in communication.

I’ll park it there. I don’t know if there’s a Q and A or how we’re proceeding.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Tammy and Allyson, for your presentation. We appreciate it.

Members, any questions that anybody would like to ask?

G. Begg: Thank you, both, for your presentation.

I think my first question is probably for Allyson. You said that there was a reluctance by the VPD to enforce some bylaws. I think you referred to…. Could you give us a specific example of what you mean when you say bylaws?

A. Fraser: With the Musqueam, because we’re federal, we have to develop bylaws, which are adopted by the Minister of Indian Affairs. So we create these bylaws for our community, in the safety of our community.

When police officers come into our community…. We try to mirror them the same as the city of Vancouver. When they come into our community and they try to enforce bylaws…. Let’s do something minor like a noise complaint or something like that. They can’t enforce because they’re not the city of Vancouver bylaws. They don’t have the same process and structure. As much as we try to copy those things, they just can’t enforce.

We need to find some sort of way where the police officers can have some authority in order to enforce those bylaws or assist us in enforcing those bylaws. They’re reluctant to enforce when we have, say, transients that come into our community, even during this time of COVID. We have security checks at the front, and we want people removed for the safety of our community. They can’t enforce our banishment bylaw. They can’t force those individuals to leave our community. At least that’s what we’ve been told.

[9:25 a.m.]

G. Begg: It may be an unfair question to ask of you. Do you know if there’s a legislative restriction that prohibits them from doing that? Why is it that they cannot do that?

A. Fraser: I can’t say if there is a legislative authority or not that prevents them from doing that, but that’s what’s happened consistently over the years. We’ve been advised that they cannot enforce our bylaws because of the way they’re written and because they’re federally adopted, I believe, from the Minister of Indian Affairs.

G. Begg: If I may, Chair, a question for Tammy, as well, while I have the floor. Thank you.

Tammy, you spoke of incidents of racism. I wonder if you can help us understand how that manifests itself, from your eyes and from your people, on the Musqueam Indian Band.

T. Harkey: I would say that at its core function…. When I call upon someone to help me, they come in a genuine manner without intention, without agenda. They come, and they treat me as a human. I know that, and I feel that.

I can speak to community members who have had wellness visits and who are seeking supports, health supports. They get hauled out of their home like criminals in the winter, in the snow, without shoes, without jackets, to be brought downtown and released, middle of the night, without care, without due attention, to return back to the community or to be left curbside.

Now, I don’t know about you guys, but I put my garbage on the curb. That’s where I put my garbage, on the curbside. My community members have that treatment. They come in, they take them away during a mental health call, and then they release them in the snow, in the middle of winter, on the curb. T-shirts, pajama bottoms, no shoes. Racism? Probably so.

The way someone speaks to you. The way someone looks at you. The way someone doesn’t look at you. The way someone doesn’t engage you. I think I’m well enough versed in that. I see it. I witness it.

Then, I think, when we report it, we go unheard. I myself have been someone that has filed a complaint, and the response is almost laughable. I don’t see enough of a change when…. It has to have a human impact. The human impact, to me, is where we don’t have the opportunity to repeat flaws. I think that there are better ways to course correct actions much sooner than the manner in which we correct the course actions of VPD.

G. Begg: Just a quick follow-up, based upon what you said. Could you characterize for me how you feel about your relationship, as an entity, with the Vancouver police department?

T. Harkey: I think it’s been an evolving relationship.

We’ve been able, because of our efforts as a people, to help build a relationship with the one officer that comes into community. We’ve been blessed a few times to have Indigenous officers come into community. We exert multiple efforts to train that individual to understand, to have compassion, to do their homework, to understand the historical injustices to Indigenous Peoples.

They don’t land here with that training. They land here with a superficial, small version of the truth. They come in, and by the goodness of the people in the community, they educate them. They give them the truth behind some of the stories that they walk in with. To me, that’s a massive flaw. We pay for a service, and then we also bear the burden of having to educate and train officers.

I think that’s a shared responsibility. I’m not saying it’s one other entity’s responsibility, but it’s a shared responsibility. If we bear the burden of it, then somebody should give us real time to really give it service, and that’s never been afforded to us. I would be well prepared to go and stand before trainees and talk about what it means to come into community and how to do it better.

G. Begg: Thank you. You’ve been very helpful.

[9:30 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for your presentations. I have a couple of questions.

I’m wondering if you could provide some insight. You mentioned that your contract with the Vancouver police department is around $400,000 per year for them to provide policing services. Presumably, this includes regular service to the community on a call-by-call basis — just regular policing — and then, as well, this community policing officer, the single officer.

Do you know how that is paid? Is this through own reserve funds, or is it paid through the allocations that are provided through the…? I’m just trying to understand how the community fiscal relationship is.

A. Fraser: The services are all paid through our property taxation, as well as some of the band subsidy — our own-source revenue.

Back in the ’70s, Indian Affairs paid about $50,000 a year towards policing services with VPD. My understanding was that at the time, the RCMP offices in the UBC area were not equipped with enough manpower, or something like that. I don’t clearly understand that history, but I could get it for you. There wasn’t enough manpower, so they shifted responsibility over to the VPD.

When we Musqueam were negotiating a city service agreement in 1980 — I believe George Puil was the mayor then — they said that $50,000 wasn’t enough and that they wanted more money. We went into a big negotiation where the city of Vancouver almost cut off all of our services. It wasn’t until Mike Harcourt had come into office that we negotiated a ten-year agreement. From that agreement, we would take a mill rate.

That worked with the city of Vancouver, and we paid from the property taxes, but we also paid for our own services through general revenue from the Musqueam Indian Band. There is no other First Nation that I know of that has to pay for their policing services, outside of Indian Affairs. They don’t contribute anything to those costs. We’ve been arguing that point for quite some time now.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that answer, Councillor. I have been investigating exactly how the fiscal relationship goes. It’s kind of at the root of the question that I have. We have, I think, a duty, here on this committee, to be taking a look at that fiscal relationship, specifically around Indigenous nations, because there is no flexibility.

This is a unique situation that you’ve highlighted. Most First Nations in the province are policed by the provincial police force, which is the RCMP. There’s no flexibility on that side of the relationship either. That there is no choice is basically what I’m suggesting, unless, of course, an Indigenous nation pays for the service entirely, as you’ve highlighted. There are a lot of restrictions. There’s a lack of flexibility that allows for a nation such as yourselves or others to be able to develop and build a relationship that’s suitable for you and for the other nations.

In this agreement that you have with the VPD, when you’re negotiating those agreements, do you have the ability to ensure that some of the things that you’ve highlighted in this…? What is the process to negotiate or renegotiate an agreement that you have with the VPD? Can you maybe provide us a little insight on what the process is for that?

[9:35 a.m.]

A. Fraser: We have no direct negotiation with the VPD on the services that they provide to Musqueam. It’s all done through the city service agreement. We pay for services under our city service agreement, but we have no say in how those services are provided to us, except to say that they should be equal to what the general public receives in the city of Vancouver.

We pay for our policing. What we get, as Coun. Tammy Harkey has indicated, are these small parachute-ins of meetings to say: “Hey, this is what’s bothering us. These are our concerns. What can we do to try to resolve them?” But that’s pretty much it.

A. Olsen: If I may, just to follow up one more time here, Mr. Chair.

I’ve been on the municipal side of the conversation through servicing agreements. I have family that were actually on the other side, the Tsartlip First Nation side of the conversation as well. We were talking about that relationship. The contracts actually developed over a period of time. There were both parties sitting at the table to negotiate an agreement for fire services, for water, for sewer — just the basic services.

Are you telling me that there is no sit-down to have the discussion about what that contract and those service deliveries should look like? It’s just, basically: “Here’s the amount of money that it’s going to cost for us to deliver services. Here are the services that we’re going to deliver, and you’re going to get what we give.” That’s the way that those contracts have been developed and continue to be developed?

A. Fraser: That’s the way they’ve continued to be developed, yeah. Services are provided without any of our…. We have no input into any of that. We put forward our thoughts on what we would like and what we would expect, but the ultimate decision is with the provincial government.

We have no say in who our community police officer will be. We have new ones that are just dropped in every few years. Then, as Tammy has said, we have to re-educate. We have to do the work on our side. But no. It’s an agreement. It’s one package for all, and we don’t have any say.

A. Olsen: Well, okay. I’ll just let that sit with….

A. Fraser: We work all day. We were trying to meet again and have some discussion with renewing the city service agreement, but that hasn’t happened since COVID hit.

A. Olsen: Thank you so much for providing this insight. I find it very useful, I think, from a perspective of policing.

I see a lot of eyebrows being raised around the committee table, just in general, on the relationship with the city of Vancouver and, perhaps, the role that the province plays in that. I hope that this has captured our attention.

R. Singh: Thank you, Allyson and Tammy, for that presentation and for talking about the lived experiences. I know how difficult it can be. It is difficult for us to imagine what you go through and what your community goes through every day.

We have been hearing — and you have said it too, Tammy — that we have to name it. We have to name the racism. I just want to tell you that this committee came into being with that understanding. We understand that there is racism, and your stories make a big impact.

Just a question. I know Adam has already brought it in. We heard it yesterday also from the native courtworker presenters. It is the distrust. We know about that. You say that, obviously, there are some good officers, but then, because it’s so imbibed within the system, you haven’t been able to see the real change that is required.

What recommendations, Tammy and Allyson, either one of you, would you like to see?

[9:40 a.m.]

T. Harkey: I think, for myself, that to directly address it we have to be a part of the full process. We can’t be at the external or the end output. We have to be a part of the process.

We talk about not being able to select the officer. Are they suitable? Are there any historical practices of this officer, any files against? Do they demonstrate good character? We do that for everybody else that comes to work in our administration office, but for the one person that’s coming in to serve and protect, we don’t get to do that.

I think that words matter. Words matter. As a province, we lead from that place, so we say that words matter. So even in this conversation…. I know it’s sort of a pattern of practice to say to be policed by. What does “to be policed by” mean? To control, supervision. What about to serve and protect, those that are hired and in a position to serve? I think we shift the mind thought and we shift the way we speak to things.

If I were a police officer and you tell me my job is to police the Musqueam, I’m going to go at it in a different direction. But if you tell me my duty and my responsibility is to serve and protect, I’m going to do it differently.

The words matter, so I want to be a part of the process. I’m putting it out there that I want to be a part of the process.

I’m going to close with a very personal situation. I was going to ask Allyson if I should or if I shouldn’t. In my last interaction with a very senior police office regarding a matter that he wanted my attention on, he used the words to me — and I consider myself a pretty well-informed, educated young woman. He asked me if I would like to sweeten the pot. I scanned out, and I asked 20 Indigenous women in my community: “What does that mean?” They said: “Well, you better find a dark trail, Tammy Harkey, because he’s asking you to do him a favour.”

I don’t think that that lingo belongs. Their words matter to me. As someone who has experienced trauma, who has experienced abuse, words matter. I guess my closing is I’m here. I stood up today. My voice is here. My offering is here. I would like to be a part of the process but not at the end game. I want to begin from the beginning.

I know we can do this better, but it has to involve us.

R. Singh: Thank you so much, Tammy. Thank you for your courage and how difficult it is to talk about those traumatic events. I really appreciate you coming here today.

T. Halford: Thank you for sharing such a personal story and your vulnerability there.

I just want to talk about — we talked a little bit about it yesterday — representation on the police board. I know you guys briefly kind of touched on that but just your views on if that’s working. I think there is some Musqueam representation on the VPD as of right now. But do we need more of that? How is that working? You talk about being part of the process. Is that an appropriate start to that?

A. Fraser: Personally, I think it’s a start. It’s not perfect. It’s not perfect by far, because you put a Musqueam or any Aboriginal person on a police board, but they’re not there to speak about the community’s specific issues. They’re there to discuss what’s being discussed by the police board for the general population.

What you need is a voice at the table that can bring you the specific issues that are affecting certain communities. I mean, generally they’re the same, but they’re not. I don’t know.

Tammy?

T. Harkey: I agree. It’s a start, but I think it’s too small to have the impact. It’s always about, when you join a table, who sets the agenda. So I say the more voice we have, the more we can inform the agenda and make our issues a priority at that table.

G. Begg: I wonder if you’re aware of an agreement that exists between the corporation of the city of Delta and the Tsawwassen First Nation and if that might be an example that you might like to look at or have looked at. Are you aware of it?

[9:45 a.m.]

It concerns me that the arrangement that you have with the city of Vancouver appears to be not to your satisfaction and not meeting your needs. It’s hard for me to imagine, if you have a $400,000 contract with the city of Vancouver, that you would not…. In other words, if you don’t know the terms and conditions of the contract, it’s hard to complain, because how do you know if they’re living up to their obligations to you?

My understanding is that the city of Delta and the Tsawwassen First Nation have a policing agreement that is working to the satisfaction of both sides. So I wonder if that might be helpful to you or if you’re aware of it or if you’d looked at it. Do you have any knowledge of it at all?

A. Fraser: With the Tsawwassen First Nation, first, they’re a treaty band, so the negotiations are different there. But they’ve had their own struggles, as well, before they’ve come to this agreement. I mean, there was quite the fight.

The city services agreement. We contribute $400,000-plus, but in actuality, we’re paying over $1 million to the city of Vancouver for water, sewer, garbage, policing, fire. You know, we pay quite a bit, but as I’ve indicated, we have no input into that.

Have I seen the Delta agreement? No, I have not, and I cannot say whether any of my other colleagues have or not, but it’s something that maybe we could look into. We would really like to build on this relationship with the VPD and see how we can get the best services, if not better, for our people.

H. Sandhu: Thank you so much, presenters Tammy and Allyson. We highly value your input.

I have a question. When you mentioned the VPD liaison member, it just makes me wonder. It doesn’t make sense to me that the nation pays for that member, but you have no say.

To me, I believe — again, correct me if I’m wrong — that nations should have the ability or they should be allowed to hire that liaison member, especially as they’re paying, in order to do proper interview process and screening. As you mentioned, if we do that screening for other jobs, why not for this, especially when it’s very crucial and it’s meant to bring us closer — one step towards improving that relationship.

You are absolutely right. Words are very powerful. They can make or break. I really liked how we will keep in mind to change the wording — “serve and protect” versus “police.” Words do have a big impact. And I agree that racism…. We need to accept it. There is a lot of denial going on. When we mention discrimination, racism…. Oftentimes people have given these modern terms just to lessen the severity of these issues.

Has there been any discussion with the VPD or other stakeholders about if the nation could be given the authority to hire their own member? Or if there was, then what was the reason? It doesn’t make sense. Why is it not the way it should be?

T. Harkey: I don’t know, Allyson, your experience.

In the hiring, I know…. I don’t know long Steve was here for, our previous liaison. He was here for a number of years. But as we learned of the transition, we became concerned because we’d put a lot of effort into working with him. The transition and the rollover of liaisons to Musqueam was really fast, so we didn’t get time to build a relationship.

We had inquired — Allyson, you can correct me — about our role and our function. We wanted to be involved. We were offered, I believe, with our new liaison, just the opportunity to meet him at the end when he was being stationed here. We have asked. We have pushed. We have fought. We’ve gone before. We’ve never been afforded the space to be able to be a part of the formal process, the screening. That’s my understanding.

[9:50 a.m.]

A. Fraser: That’s correct, Tammy. I mean, we’ve gone through how many officers? We’ve gone from Tim to Steve to Kash Heed to John. The turnover is quite a bit.

I don’t understand what that turnover is about. But no, we have not had any input into it, as Councillor Harkey has said. We seem to get introduced to them once they’ve already gone through a process and they’re dropped into our community.

H. Sandhu: Thank you so much. It seems like it’s a big gap there, for whatever reasons. How are we going to have meaningful reconciliation? It just doesn’t make sense to me. People who are involved need to look at it, and as a committee, we will be discussing this to see what the ways are we can find out.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Any other questions from members?

I’ve got a couple of follow-up questions on what’s been asked. How long have you had this contract with the VPD?

A. Fraser: The city service agreement was negotiated back in 1980. That’s when we first started with some form of agreement with the city of Vancouver.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): You’ve kind of alluded that you get a cycle of officers that come through. I don’t know if you can give an approximate…. Do you get a couple of different ones every year? Is there any kind of a rhyme or reason to how long you might get an assigned officer for your policing needs?

A. Fraser: No. We’ve had a few that have lasted a few years. I don’t really know what the reasons are for why they jump off board. Maybe they’re just moving on and being repositioned within the department, or family issues. We really don’t know. We get the notice that they’ve decided to move on, and we get somebody new.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): The final question, I guess, around that is — again, understanding the lack of input that you have on the relationship: has there ever been any conversation around having an Indigenous police officer that is with the VPD to assist in this?

A. Fraser: We have had a few Indigenous police officers that are community police officers. But again, they come with a lack of understanding, for whatever reasons. Like I alluded to prior, every First Nation is different. So it’s an education with even Indigenous officers. That’s as far as it goes, right?

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Over the past little while, then…. I said I had a last question, but that kind of spurred me on to another one.

I know MLA Begg had talked about Delta’s model. Have there been discussions within your own band council regarding looking at different policing models within your own community, whether that be looking at partnerships with other police forces, RCMP, or even looking at what it would look like — there are a couple of examples of First Nations police within their own communities — administered strictly within your own band? Any thoughts or discussions that you have had around that?

A. Fraser: We have had some discussion amongst ourselves. Musqueam is working on a self-government agreement. We have been speaking with senior people with regard to our policing services and how we might be able to change those things and have something within our own community.

As it sits right now and today, we’re with VPD, so how do we build that relationship? Even if we were to start our own policing services, we’re going to have some sort of transition and form a relationship and education and training. So how do we do that with what we have right now?

I don’t know, Tammy, if you have….

[9:55 a.m.]

T. Harkey: I think the same. I don’t know. We’ve had those conversations. I think we’re at that place and in that space where we are saying quite loudly that our experience hasn’t been what we need it to be — not want but need it to be. Right now we are with the VPD. I think the mechanism that drives the decisions, the police policy that doesn’t allow an officer to be here beyond five years….

I know Steve Hanuse fought to stay. He made it here for nine years, but that was because he had pushed and forced. He saw the relationship. He had built the trust of the community to be able to do his work well. However, policy pulled him out of here, moved him on, and we restart.

I think it’s time, but because we’re here, this is what we have. We know we need to do some work, but we just need the space to be able to do it. We need to be allowed at the table.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great, thanks.

Harwinder has a follow-up.

H. Sandhu: Dan, you asked part of my question.

I know…. Earlier Allyson suggested that to improve communication, it is recommended that the members of the Musqueam Nation have to be involved. That’s what I’m thinking. Why hasn’t that step been taken or allowed to do so? That would make much more sense — to have the proper communication and the trust, most importantly, for members of the nation to feel safer.

Just more like a comment. Thank you.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thanks, everybody. I don’t see any further questions.

Thank you very much, Tammy. Thank you very much, Allyson, for spending some time with us today. Certainly, you shed a lot of insight on policing within your community. It has given us, certainly, lots to ponder over the coming weeks and months that we are in this committee. Thank you both very, very much. Really appreciate it.

Committee members, we have heard from the Adams Lake Indian Band. They’ve reached out, and unfortunately, they have to reschedule their meeting with us.

With that being said, we do not have our next delegation here until 10:30 this morning. So I will call this committee to recess until 10:30 this morning.

The committee recessed from 9:57 a.m. to 10:32 a.m.

[D. Davies in the chair.]

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North as well as the Deputy Chair for the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I’m happy to be joining today from the traditional terri­tory of the Dane-zaa and appreciate doing the work in this territory.

I’d like to welcome all of those who are listening and participating to this meeting.

For these meetings, presenters have been organized into panels. We’ve heard from two already this morning, and we have two more this afternoon. I’ll get to introducing them in just a quick moment.

Each presenter has 15 minutes for their presentation. We kindly ask that presenters do be respectful of this time limit. Following the presentations from the panel, there will be time for questions from committee members. At that time, I ask members to raise their hand and indicate if they have a question. I will be keeping a speaking list.

I also ask that everyone please put themselves on mute and wait to be recognized before speaking.

As well, all audio from this meeting today is broadcast live on our website. A complete transcript, also, will be posted later.

I’ll now ask that the members of the committee introduce themselves.

A. Olsen: Good morning. My name is Adam Olsen. My traditional Coast Salish name is SȾHENEP.

I’m very happy to be here working from the territory of my relatives the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people.

I represent Saanich North and the Islands.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thanks.

K. Kirkpatrick: Hello. I’m Karin Kirkpatrick.

I’m joining you from the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples, represented by the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish First Nations.

I am the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

G. Begg: Good morning, everyone. I’m Garry Begg. I’m the MLA for Surrey-Guildford.

I’m privileged today to be joining you from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people.

[10:35 a.m.]

H. Sandhu: Good morning, everyone. I am Harwinder Sandhu.

I’m joining you today from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian Nation.

R. Singh: Thank you so much. Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I’m joining you today from the unceded territories of Coast Salish people, especially the Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem and Tsawwassen First Nations.

T. Halford: Trevor Halford, Surrey–White Rock.

I am joining you from the territories of the Kwantlen First Nation and the Semiahmoo First Nation.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thanks for that.

Again, welcome this morning to our deliberations. We’re going to be hearing from the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and the Heiltsuk Nation.

First of all, though, we are going to hear from the Tsleil-Waututh. We have Chief Leah George-Wilson and Andrew Van Eden, the community safety manager.

With that, I will turn it over to both of you folks. Good morning.

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH FIRST NATION

L. George-Wilson: [Hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ was spoken.]

Greetings to our honoured guests and my dear ones. I have good feelings in my heart to see all of you today. In my language, called hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓, I told you my name, and I told you who my parents are, because in our [hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ was spoken], it’s important for you to know that I know exactly who I am. I welcomed you to Tsleil-Waututh territory, because that’s where Andrew and I are speaking from today.

I’d like to say thank you to the special committee on Police Act reform, especially MLAs Doug Routley and Dan Davies, for inviting us to speak to you. With me today is Andrew Van Eden. He is Tsleil-Waututh’s community safety manager. He has been with us for almost 18 years, providing justice services and serving as a liaison with the justice system.

Thank you, Andrew, for joining me.

The Tsleil-Waututh Nation is a small Coast Salish First Nation that holds Aboriginal title over approximately 1,400 square kilometres, including land and water, in the greater Vancouver area and up to the Indian River watershed. This includes reserve lands located on the north shore of Burrard Inlet and the mouth of the Indian River.

TWN people, the Tsleil-Waututh, have a special obligation given to us from the Creator to look after our people, our land and our water, which we have done since time out of mind and continue to do so today. We continue the work of our ancestors, protecting not only our territory but our language and culture as well.

A portion of the IR 3 includes a developed leasehold land with residential development, here at Tsleil-Waututh, for approximately 2,000 people. We are a progressive community, with a population of approximately 600, with more than half living on reserve.

I’d like to focus our short time today on the systemic and structural racism within Indigenous policing. Currently, the North Vancouver RCMP is the police of jurisdiction for Tsleil-Waututh. The federal government, with its own legislation and under agreement with the province, has determined that the province has the responsibility to provide policing to First Nation communities within the province.

Under the Police Act, the municipalities of the district of North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver have the right to choose the provincial police as their local police, or a municipal department. They have chosen the RCMP. Under the legislation outlining police structure, municipalities with populations greater than 5,000 provide policing to First Nations located within their boundary. So legislatively, the federal, provincial and municipal governments have determined who will police Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

Under the Police Act, where an RCMP service is used locally, a police committee may be used, not to provide local direction or oversight, but to share information, ensure adequate resources and offer advice. While this formal structure within legislation is not used in North Van, there is an advisory-type committee. The North Van policing committee is made up of both mayors, both CEOs and one elected council member from each municipality. There is no representation of Tsleil-Waututh Nation or our neighbours and relatives, the Squamish Nation.

[10:40 a.m.]

Consider that in all levels of government that I’ve outlined that have a say in who polices the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Tsleil-Waututh is not on that list. As we consider the hierarchy of responsibility and accountability, and the areas of the country from which the RCMP’s training priorities and hiring occur, nowhere is representation from the Tsleil-Waututh Nation considered.

Further, if you look at the RCMP website and go to the North Vancouver page, there’s a description of the detachment that notes that they serve the city of North Van and the district, Burrard Indian Reserve, Mission Indian Reserve and Capilano Indian Reserve. I note here that Tsleil-Waututh no longer uses Burrard Indian Band. Our name is Tsleil-Waututh. Nowhere in that list do you see who are the nations that govern those reserves.

When you look to the social media, the North Vancouver RCMP strategic plan, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation is not even listed as a community served by the North Van RCMP. Not a single mention of the nation — or any reserve, for that matter — is noted.

As a leader of my community, how can I encourage people to call the police in an emergency or in a non-emergency when the local police don’t even recognize that our community is part of their jurisdiction? Is this not an erasure of our identity? Tsleil-Waututh has been erased from any government-level decision-making and has been excluded from any representation in the determination of the safety and security of our people. This is because the Police Act allows it.

In 2019, the B.C. government adopted the U.N. declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples as law. Bill 41 became the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA. Everything that has been outlined to you to this point is a violation of UNDRIP, specifically articles 7.1, 18 and 23.

Article 7.1 outlines: “Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person.”

Article 18 speaks directly to much of the lack of inclusion of Tsleil-Waututh in any level of decision-making and representation. It states: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions.”

Lastly, article 23 states: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, Indigenous Peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programs affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programs through their own institutions.”

Police Act reform must allow for direct inclusion of First Nations decision-making powers over the policing of their communities. Police Act reform must provide First Nations representation in who and how the security of their people is provided. Police Act reform must include the exploration of replacing a national police force as the provincial police force with something that is solely accountable to British Columbia, B.C. communities and First Nations.

Tsleil-Waututh is part of the First Nations policing program, cost-shared by the federal and provincial governments. It provides Tsleil-Waututh with representation and some decision-making in the policing of our community. Andrew was a key TWN staff member involved in the creation of the integrated First Nation police unit, IFNU, in 2007. We are aware of the limitations of this policing program, and its need for reform.

The First Nations policing program, created in 1991, offered First Nations two models of policing: self-administered police services for the community or community tripartite agreements. In British Columbia, there was only one self-administered First Nation police force. All other communities accessing the First Nations police program have done so under the CTAs. At the time of our negotiations with the province for the IFNU, it was made clear to us that the province had no intention of allowing any other self-administered police services in B.C.

[10:45 a.m.]

The First Nation enhanced policing agreement for Tsleil-Waututh was signed in 2007. I actually signed it, along with the Squamish Nation, the province and West Vancouver, on behalf of their municipal department. It provides a sergeant and five constables to work on the two nations’ reserve lands.

The original agreement was for five years with one-year extensions. Our agreement has expired in 2017, and despite meeting with provincial police services and putting input along with our local police partners, no new agreement has been presented to us. We remain on a verbal agreement until something new is presented. Our approach from the start was to develop IFNU at the most local level possible, considering that it cannot be administered directly by the nation but can be done through strong relationship-building with our local detachments.

The First Nations policing program is not built to be local. It is built to provide enhanced services locally while being administered provincially.

In the B.C. First Nations justice strategy, strategy 22 provides: “Establish new models for structured relations between First Nations, the RCMP and other police forces that support new strategic and policy-level, as well as community-level, and cooperative change, while supporting greater community-level police forces.”

It goes on to say that the relationship between First Nations and policing is complicated by multiple structures of policing across B.C. TWN is living proof of that fact. While there are 132 communities that are part of the First Nations policing program, we find that the models are not flexible to adapt and meet the needs and circumstances of our communities. Space needs to be made for the negotiation of community priorities and not just the inflexible models. Much work needs to be done to ensure the shift is made to reflect First Nations jurisdiction and governance and the building of understanding of First Nations laws and law-making.

The lack of Indigenous representation is a major issue. In reference to decision-making powers, oversight, administration and representation and the who and how security is provided to First Nations citizens, we don’t need to look any further than the First Nations policing policy, originally passed in 1991, as referenced in the 1996 Royal Commission report on Aboriginal peoples titled Bridging the Cultural Divide. The First Nations policing policy states that the program will ensure on-reserve police services be “independent of First Nation community or band governance authority yet accountable to the communities they serve.” It’s literally part of the policy.

Consider, as well, the 2019 Council of Canadian Academies report titled Toward Peace, Harmony and Well-Being: Policing in Indigenous Communities. One of the findings of their report, noted in the summary, states: “Jurisdictional ambiguity between federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments has resulted in the development of a ‘program and funding’ approach to policing that neglects to treat policing as an essential service on reserves as it is in non-Indigenous communities across Canada.”

This is another example of the separation of services to Indigenous People being entrenched in policy and procedure that people don’t reflect upon and consider it unequal treatment. This is similar to the treatment of Indigenous People in the health care system. Both examples go to show that the discrimination and racism are systemic. Work needs to occur, not just in making the changes currently but also in building out differently than before to ensure that DRIPA is reflected, as well as the TRC, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and reconciliation in general.

The notion that the First Nations policing program takes a program and funding approach has recently been addressed by the federal government in its announcement that First Nations policing will become an essential service. However, the over 130 communities in British Columbia remain with the community tripartite agreement, which only secures the funding. It doesn’t remove the program-based approach. With this approach, under these policies, you can see that it is in no way aligned with UNDRIP. The same articles referenced from UNDRIP earlier relate to core policing and provide similar applicability with the enhanced services. Only a slight variation occurs in the enhanced program with Tsleil-Waututh.

[10:50 a.m.]

Tremendous reform of this approach must be considered in removing it from being a program to providing policing as an essential service and from allowing only consultative input that is independent of First Nation government authority to a service that is administered by a governing body of a nation. We carry hope that this positive change will occur.

We’ve already seen changes, on the ground and at the community level, in our relationship to the police. Originally, in 2004, we were told by the superintendent of the North Van RCMP, “If you don’t pay for it, you don’t get to have it,” in reference to policing resources beyond general duty calls. More recently superintendents have been clear that the resources of the North Van RCMP are available when operationally needed.

Our integrated unit has engaged with the community in positive ways, providing for a safer community and an improved level of trust in some areas. The new superintendent of the North Van RCMP has recently committed to finding ways to include Tsleil-Waututh in the strategic plan. These are positive steps. I wish to remind you that they are not protected or articulated by or in legislation or policy.

Structurally, there is much work to be done reforming the Police Act. Rethinking policing as an essential service that is administered by the First Nations is vital to the safety of the First Nations communities and vital to ending structural and systemic racism in policing. I encourage this committee to review the recent B.C. First Nations justice strategy, which I quoted earlier, as established by the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, as well as the ten immediate action points established at last year’s National Indigenous Justice Summit. We’d be happy to provide copies.

From that strategy plan, in a line action, it is to “co-develop a framework for expansion and transition to increased community-based First Nations police forces,” developing the approach by First Nations in B.C., working with Canada, to develop changes to the First Nations policing program. That would include “interim steps such as community safety constable programs” and “new peacemaking and safety initiatives.”

Or consider a separate yet partnered Indigenous provincial police service that is contracted by local First Nations and that provides all core and enhanced policing needs on reserve and that is overseen and administered by a governing body directly appointed by the nations. These could be services unique to each nation or provided on a regional level, with various nations that are geographically near each other sharing the service and governance structure.

The service would be community safety–focused, rooted in more localized cultural values and approaches. That includes, as part of the officer training, intensive work in historical trauma, colonization and government policies of colonization, governance structures and histories of local nations, and culturally appropriate resources that are available to them. Police Act reform that structurally shifts decision-making and supports self-determination, as articulated in UNDRIP, will create a more effective and appropriate police service for First Nations communities in British Columbia.

Also, please note the Tsleil-Waututh Nation is of the view that the police should not investigate police matters. There needs to be an independent body to perform this task. In our discussion, we’d like to underline our support for wellness checks being performed by qualified members of the health field and not police.

Thank you for your time today. Andrew and I would be happy to answer questions, should there be any.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great. Thank you. We appreciate that. We are going to do questions at the end of the presentations.

With that being said, members and public, we do have a late addition to the agenda. We have the Penelakut Tribe, who will also be presenting, following the Heiltsuk.

I do want to welcome Chief Joan Brown as well as Coun. Joshua James to our meeting. We will get to them as soon as we hear from Chief Marilyn Slett.

[10:55 a.m.]

HEILTSUK NATION

M. Slett: Good morning. I’m Zooming in from Heiltsuk territory. It’s nice to see some familiar faces, and it’s good to meet the rest of you. Thank you for this opportunity to present today.

Reforming the Police Act is important and urgent work. We must address systemic racism in B.C.’s police agencies and ensure that police are working with Indigenous Peoples to maintain safety — not against us. I am hopeful that this committee’s work will help realize this change. I will focus my presentation on the Heiltsuk community’s experience with local police, both in urban settings like Vancouver and in our rural and remote community of Bella Bella. I will share two stories with you about the Heiltsuk experience with police.

The first is about the systemic racism that a Heiltsuk member and his granddaughter experienced when they went to a Vancouver bank to deposit money. The second is about the Heiltsuk community’s struggle to find support from the RCMP for bylaw enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic. I am sharing these stories with you to illustrate some of the systemic problems we face as Indigenous Peoples and governments when dealing with the police. I will also use these stories to illustrate some of the reforms needed to address these issues.

In December 2019, Max Johnson, a Heiltsuk member, travelled to Vancouver with his granddaughter Tori and other family members. Max had an account with the Bank of Montreal and visited the Burrard Street location in Vancouver. He wanted to visit the bank with Tori to help open an account for her as a means of teaching her personal financial management and to empower her. Max also wanted to be able to easily transfer funds to Tori to support her when travelling for basketball. Bella Bella, where they live, does not have any banks, which is why they needed to do this in Vancouver.

They made an appointment for December 20, and Max, Tori and another family member went to the bank that day. At the bank, Max provided his Status card and Tori’s Status card for identification. After discussions with staff, Max understood there was a problem with the numbers on his card not matching up, and they could not get an account.

In order to get their cards back, Max and Tori were asked to go upstairs, where their cards were. After waiting for some time, police officers entered and walked towards them, and Tori asked her grandpa if they were coming for them. Max laughed it off and said he didn’t think so. But they were. Unknown to Max and Tori, the bank had called 911, and the Vancouver police department had responded to the call. The two Vancouver police department constables took Max and Tori outside on the street and handcuffed them. The police told them that they were not being arrested but being detained.

More Vancouver police department officers arrived. They separated Tori from Max. So they were not able to speak to one another. Tori was only 12 years old. She was in handcuffs on a downtown street corner. Max and Tori still didn’t have their IDs back and didn’t understand what the issue was. The police officers said they had been called because of a fraud. The police officers were suspicious about Max, where he came from and how he got to Vancouver. Eventually the police officers took the handcuffs off Max and told him and Tori they were free to go.

This experience was traumatic for the individuals involved. Both were very shaken and upset following the incident, and both are now very nervous around police officers. The incident was also traumatizing for family and community members, including Elders. Hearing that Max’s 12-year-old granddaughter Tori was handcuffed and removed from her caregiver, even by a number of metres, reminded Elders of the history of residential schools. It reminded them of watching children and siblings being put into handcuffs and being taken away from their families in boats.

What happened to Max and Tori is an example of systemic racism in B.C. policing. The Vancouver police department officers racially profiled Max and Tori. They assumed that because Max and Tori are Indigenous, they had likely engaged in criminal activity. They decided it was appropriate and needed in the circumstances to handcuff a grandfather and his 12-year-old granddaughter. If Max and Tori had not been Indigenous, I do not believe the police would have handcuffed them on the pavement outside the bank. They would have sat down with Max and Tori and asked some questions.

[11:00 a.m.]

What can be done to address this kind of systemic racism? One place to start is ensuring that all municipal police officers and municipal police board members in B.C. complete mandatory, adequate cultural competency and anti-racism training. This could be legislated in the Police Act, in part by requiring members of municipal police boards to complete this training and be qualified for their positions.

The Police Act should also require that municipal police boards include at least one individual who is Indigenous. This will help municipal police boards increase their cultural competency and understanding.

These changes will help align the Police Act with UNDRIP, including article 15, which calls on states to take effective measures to combat prejudice, to eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding and good relations.

After the incident, Max and Tori took a number of actions. One way they addressed the police misconduct was by filing a complaint with the B.C. Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. Max and Tori have faced a number of issues in this complaint process that I also want to bring to your attention.

First of all, the OPCC process is not independent enough. I really do support Chief Leah’s comments on this. In Max and Tori’s complaint process, another municipal police department acts as the investigating body, while a third municipal police department acts as the discipline body. This OPCC process should be conducted by an independent individual who is not a current member of a police department.

One of the reasons this is so important is to enhance trust in the process. When a police officer interviewed Tori for this process, she was fearful. A more independent process would mean a more comfortable process for Indigenous participants and, ultimately, lead to a fair and fuller investigation result.

There have also been significant issues with the timeline for the investigation. The Police Act says an OPCC investigation must generally be completed in six months. Then the matter moves forward to the discipline body. However, this is not what happened here.

The Police Complaint Commissioner has a number of powers to send an investigation back for further work. In Max and Tori’s case, the investigating officer has delivered the investigation report to the commissioner twice. It has been sent back in both cases. This has effectively suspended the timeline for this process, leaving Max and Tori with no certainty about when the process will conclude.

The investigation has now taken over a year, and we don’t know when it will be complete. There should be a cap on the number of months the process can be extended — for example, a maximum of 12 months.

Addressing these issues will help align the Police Act with UNDRIP, including article 40, which says Indigenous Peoples have the right to prompt decision-making through a just and fair procedure for the resolution of conflicts and disputes.

Max and Tori have faced other issues in this process. It is not possible to cover all of them here today. However, I would be pleased to provide them in a written submission setting out these issues in more detail and covering other issues.

I also want to speak to you about the Heiltsuk community’s struggle to find support from the RCMP for bylaw enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In general, Indigenous governments located on reserve have to rely on the Indian Act to make laws, which are called bylaws. Indigenous governments continue to use this tool, despite its deep flaws, because it is the only tool available. However, the enforcement mechanisms for bylaws are so wanting that it almost undermines the purpose of passing such bylaws.

In practice, Indigenous governments rely on the police to help enforce bylaws. Heiltsuk relies on the RCMP, although we have our own bylaw enforcement officer with limited powers.

During the pandemic, Heiltsuk has attempted to use bylaws to address a number of threats that have arisen in Bella Bella, including non-essential travel to our community, large parties and people who refuse to wear masks. However, the RCMP had made it clear, at the beginning of the pandemic, that they would not help Indigenous communities enforce such bylaws. They would only stand to help and keep the peace.

This has meant that Indigenous governments like Heiltsuk have had to enforce their own bylaws on their own, despite limited resources, with the limited powers of bylaw enforcement officers, who are not trained as police officers and do not have the same powers.

[11:05 a.m.]

The RCMP then created a new initiative with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Indigenous communities bylaw prosecution protocols. Through this initiative, the RCMP will help an Indigenous community enforce COVID-19–related Indian Act bylaws.

However, the RCMP and PPSC have to agree that the bylaw is enforceable before they will agree to enforce and prosecute it. This creates ground for conflicts. The RCMP and Indigenous governments may have different views and opinions regarding what is necessary and enforceable in a bylaw.

This current system is not working well for Indigenous governments like Heiltsuk, who use Indian Act bylaws to protect our people. This needs to change. The RCMP should work with us to help us achieve our community’s safety goals and enforce our bylaws. This will require discussion and the co-creation of new processes that work for both the RCMP and Indigenous governments.

Realizing these changes will also support Indigenous People’s right to self determination. That is set out in article 3 of UNDRIP.

I want to thank you, once again, for the opportunity to present here today. I look forward to providing you with more detailed written submissions. I am hopeful that your committee’s work will help realize some of the important reforms I have outlined to help uproot systemic racism in B.C. policing and ensure the police are working with and not against Indigenous people.

Ǧiáxsix̌a. Thank you.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Great. Thank you very much, Marilyn. Appreciate the presentation.

We’ll move on to the Penelakut Tribe.

Chief Joan Brown and Joshua James, over to you. Welcome.

PENELAKUT TRIBE

J. James: Thank you for the introduction. It’s great to meet everyone here.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about our process so far. Currently, right now, we don’t have a tripartite agreement with the province and the RCMP. So it’s been a little bit of a difficulty contacting the proper people for ourselves. I have been…. The process hasn’t been very clear so far. I’m told…. Well, there hasn’t been a lot of communication since the initial conversation. So it hasn’t been a constant connection at the present moment.

Sorry. I didn’t have a presentation prepared for you guys. I just wanted to more or less talk a little bit openly about the process.

I’m going to pass the computer over to Joan here.

J. Brown: Good morning, everybody. I’d like to thank everybody for coming together today for this very important meeting.

I come to you from the Penelakut territory.

I sit here very frustrated with the lack of services that Penelakut has seen from the RCMP. What’s been happening is…. We live out on a Gulf Island that’s about a half an hour to a 45-minute ferry ride. If we get a call, you know, call the RCMP…. We can’t get to our boat. By the time we get out there, this whole incident will be over. So they refuse to come to Penelakut to even attend any incidents.

Our members lost confidence in the RCMP because the RCMP will not attend any incidents here. They wait till there’s a report of an assault before they even come here. They used to come on the ferry. Recently they refused to come on a ferry. They wait to come over on their boat.

I remember a few years ago, about four or five or six years ago, they used to come, show up and get off the ferry. Now they do not. They refuse to come on a ferry. They don’t want to wait or get stuck over here or anything like that. So now they have their own boat.

[11:10 a.m.]

They always bring up: “Oh, it’s going to take this much time to get the boat into the water, then get the boat over to Penelakut.” I’ve stressed this many times — that we need services here. We need presence here. I’ve had to put my own life at risk.

Spring break last year kids were out biking because they were out of school for spring break. We get a report of a drunk driver. We called the RCMP. “No, we can’t get over there. By the time we get over there, this person’s going to be gone.” So I jumped in my vehicle to go and stop them. I’m out there putting my life at risk, trying to protect my community, because we have no police service. I’m out there putting my vehicle in front of a drunk driver, trying to get this person off the road before this person goes down that road where all these children were.

These are things that we have to do here to try and keep our community safe. We’re having to police our own island because we do not have the services. We asked the RCMP: “Can you just come over and make your presence known? Come and do a ride around just to let the community know that you guys are here.” We don’t see them. They don’t come here. We ask them to just come to a canoe race. “Just come and show your presence so that they know you’re here.” They will not come.

Things like that are very frustrating. We’ve tried to call them numerous times. Our community has tried calling the RCMP to come and deal with a threat. What they get from the RCMP is that there needs to be an assault. There needs to be an incident before they can come to the island, before they’re allowed to come to the island.

What we’re trying to do is protect our community. Waiting for an assault or an incident to happen isn’t protecting the community. Where we live, out in the Gulf Islands…. If you’re out there in Sidney or Chemainus or the towns nearby, you get service right away. But being out in the Gulf Islands, we don’t get services. It’s getting very frustrating.

I’ve had meetings with the RCMP. I’ve brought this to the RCMP, the lack of service to keep our community safe, to try to stop things before they happen instead of waiting for something bad to happen. We’ve had a murder here that’s still unsolved. It was my cousin, a young girl, Deedee Brown. She was murdered. She was missing for almost a month before they found her body. That’s unsolved. We live in fear here because this murder is unsolved. The murderer is probably still in the community.

Josh, do you have anything?

J. James: During those meetings with the RCMP, as well, we also asked them to be a part of our planning process. Earlier this year we ratified our First Nations land management regime. Some of those earlier steps are going to be going into some land use planning. I’m hoping that’s going to outline some of the bylaw development that we’re going to be doing within our community.

Again, I invited the RCMP to be a part of that process, as well, and asked how our bylaws will communicate with our tripartite agreement. I forgot to mention that earlier.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much, Joan and Josh. I appreciate your contribution today.

[11:15 a.m.]

Just before I open up to questions — I’ll do some questions — can you tell us a little bit about your community? I’m from Fort St. John. So please excuse my ignorance. The membership — how many members of your community? — as well as, maybe, the RCMP detachment that services your community.

J. James: Yeah, sure. Penelakut Tribe is split into four different reserve locations. There’s Penelakut Island, Tent Island, a small portion on the northern part of Galiano Island, as well as a small area that’s on the side of Chemainus, which is Tsussie. Penelakut Tribe has about 1,000 members, and there are probably about 60 percent that are on reserve — so 500 to 600 members.

Right now we’re in discussions with Ladysmith dispatch in regard to getting the conversation started for the agreement with the province as well as the RCMP. Like what I was mentioning, the dispatch themselves have been fully supportive of the process and helping us. It’s just taking a little bit too long — right? — to have more of an open line of communication between the province, the RCMP and ourselves. It’s been a long time coming, and we would really want to get this agreement set in place.

When we’re talking with one of the constables there, as I was mentioning, it’s important for the community to see this partnership and this planning process. I’d like them to be involved in more of our community functions. That way there’s the start of the relationship-building within the community.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for that.

Members, questions for our three delegates, if we could.

A. Olsen: Chief Brown, Chief Slett, Chief George-Wilson, thank you so much for your presentations.

Chief Slett, it’s been too long since I’ve been in Bella Bella. It’s a beautiful community on the coast. I’m just sorry that your membership has to go through these kinds of experiences. This is the hope that I have for this committee — that we’re able to recognize these challenges that we have and ensure that, coming out of this process, those experiences are not part of the future, but they’re part of our past.

I don’t really have anything to add here other than to just simply emphasize the fact that we’ve got…. Two of our three presenters here are operating without agreements. What does that say about the priority of this province that we’ve got communities that are operating without agreements? We’ve got a community on Penelakut Island. I talked yesterday with the ministry about the southern Gulf Islands and policing the southern Gulf Islands, in my riding. It’s an absolute challenge.

Penelakut is asking for policing services, and they can’t get it. Talk about invisibility. Talk about erasure, as Chief George-Wilson has highlighted. We talk about and we’ve heard about the limited opportunities that First Nations have. In the first presentation, to select their own policing forces…. We’ve got now a situation where a community can’t get the attention of government to get a tripartite agreement. They want the RCMP to provide services. They can’t get services. That is, I think, part of the issue that we’re dealing with — a huge indication of the systemic racism, discrimination and bias in this province.

The communities on the North Shore operating with a handshake agreement, a verbal agreement, is not acceptable. I just want to add emphasis to the fact that we are dealing with a very, very broken system that obviously does not….

[11:20 a.m.]

Do we think, in any way, that any municipality in this province serviced by the RCMP would be doing it without agreement?

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much. I mirror what Adam is saying.

I’d like to start, first, Chief George-Wilson, to apologize to you. I have lived in the North Shore community for 15 years. I’ve said Tsleil-Waututh many times. So my apologies for…. You must have made me nervous at the beginning of the meeting. Thank you for your time.

I do have a question on the Heiltsuk Nation, the story of Max and Tori. I know, when I heard it, it was appalling. I find it very upsetting and clearly very upsetting for your community. I would just like to acknowledge that I do believe it is a prime example of an extreme issue of systemic racism, and I apologize that that happened to your community. I do appreciate your sharing that story with us again.

I’m curious about the struggle to help the bylaws be enforced during the pandemic. I just wanted to clarify my understanding, Marilyn. The RCMP refused to enforce those bylaws. Was it just during the pandemic, or have they refused to do that in the past? Is this isolated, or is this a systemic, ongoing issue?

M. Slett: It has been ongoing. We’re in the process of updating our bylaws. A lot of them are dated, but the emergency bylaw is brand-new. We enacted it at the beginning of the pandemic. So that has been our most recent experience with a very recent bylaw that our community has enacted.

K. Kirkpatrick: So their expectation was that you would just self-regulate this as a community.

M. Slett: And we have. We have a bylaw officer. We’re just hiring another part-time officer. We’ve had to hire a community patrol in our community. We have had community checkpoints at the entrances of our community. We even had to….

Last summer, when B.C. started with their phased approach to reopening, our community was still closed because we have very limited health care access in our community. One COVID case is an outbreak here, because we have one available bed in our hospital.

There were American vessels going through the waters and stopping at a resort across the way, and we ended up having to hire some of our own people to set up that marina and log the boat traffic that was coming through to ensure there were no American vessels or tourist vessels coming through. So the onus has been on our community.

K. Kirkpatrick: That’s very difficult. Thank you.

One final question, actually, for Chief Brown or for Joshua. When there was a refusal of the RCMP to bring the ferry over…. I’m just looking geographically. Is it Thetis Island that RCMP come from, or is it Chemainus? Where are they accessing your community from?

J. James: From Ladysmith.

K. Kirkpatrick: They’ve come all the way from Lady­smith. Okay.

Thank you very much. I appreciate all your answers here.

G. Begg: Thanks, everyone, for a very valuable presentation.

I reflect on what Adam said. I think it’s remarkable, and all of us have to keep this in mind as we do our work. We’re going from a large metropolitan area like Vancouver and North Vancouver all the way to the Gulf Islands. So it is a remarkably large area with remarkable needs that have to be addressed by some coordinated body.

I like Chief George-Wilson’s comment about jurisdictional ambiguity. I think that’s important. It is a theme that has arisen time and time again. I think it’s exacerbated in the smaller communities. Josh and Joan spoke about the difficulty just to get police to attend, until after an event has already happened, when there’s no reason for them to attend if the event is over.

[11:25 a.m.]

I respect that there are, obviously, some limitations on the part of the police. It is a very remote area, and they’re probably, in that area, understaffed, as they are in many areas.

My question would be: has there ever been, Josh or Joan, a policing agreement that has covered you in your area, or has it always been sort of left without anything?

J. James: From my knowledge, no, there hasn’t been a tripartite agreement between the RCMP, the province and Penelakut Tribe.

That being said, I do try to keep an open line of communication with a couple of people at the Ladysmith dispatch. Like I was mentioning earlier, I’d love for them to be more along the planning and preventative and awareness side. But at this present point, and since I was a kid, it’s been just more responsive than anything, which comes with its own challenges.

Just as Joan was mentioning earlier, sometimes, when you have intoxicated drivers or things where we get reports of it as staff as well as elected council for the community, it gets brought to our attention right away. We try, just as I was mentioning, to maintain that open line of communication with the Ladysmith dispatch.

G. Begg: I respect the history that’s got us to where we are, but I wonder if you can comment on the process now. Is it a cumbersome process for you to negotiate the tripartite agreement at this stage? You’re at the very beginning, I assume. Is it challenging? Is it cumbersome?

J. James: Yeah. We went through some staff changes here in the office. The original conversation started with our previous band manager. I was appointed as interim band manager, so I was asked to pick up the file and start back-tracing and contacting people.

Yes, it has been very difficult to reach out to the individuals that handle the files for the province. I understand the difficulties of a global pandemic, as well, right? But it’s still…. I thought there should still be a little bit more communication between the two parties.

G. Begg: Do you know if the province has appointed a point person, for example, to deal with you and the issues that you’re facing?

J. James: No.

G. Begg: You don’t know, or it hasn’t happened?

J. James: It hasn’t happened.

R. Singh: Thank you to all the presenters for your presentations. We have been hearing about the gaps.

Chief Wilson, what you talked about, about the gaps in the policing. We hear you. Really, really sad. No doubt, change needs to happen. Why your community hasn’t got that agreement is something to be looked into.

The story that I would really like to…. Marilyn, what you were talking about — the story about the Indigenous grandfather. We read that story so many times, but today when we heard it from you, how painful that is. There’s no way to…. However many times you hear it, there’s no explanation of what happened that day. I now recall that there was a story on CBC covering that, and the gaps….

[11:30 a.m.]

When the transcript was released, the bank transcript, it seemed that the person at the bank was saying they were two South Asian people. They have no cultural knowledge, for one thing. But whether it is South Asian or it is Indigenous, it is marginalized communities that were being targeted.

I think that’s the crux of the matter that we have to deal with: what our Indigenous communities are going through, what the racialized communities or what the Black people are going through. That is what we really need to deal with: the lack of the cultural sensitivity, the lack of education and just the systemic racism imbibed in our system.

Thank you for sharing that.

M. Slett: I agree. When we first saw the transcripts, it was very confusing — the whole chain of events and the confusion. The lack of any sort of cultural competency was so clear.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Any other members have any questions?

I did have one question to Chief Brown, just to kind of wrap my head around this. From what I understand, then, the RCMP kind of leave any minor matters. Do they compile lists until there’s a serious incident, and that’s when they come and deal with the serious incident and then they go about dealing with the other complaints that have been brought? Is that how it’s working so far?

J. Brown: They come over here…. If there’s a warrant out, they’ll come and attend that. For other incidents, they will not show. They will not come to Penelakut Island.

There was an assault. They were on the phone with the RCMP or with 911 trying to get somebody here. Nobody came. You can go for days without them responding to a call. They’ll come like five days later if there’s an assault. That’s how much time that is in between these calls. It’s days. There not there during a call, right after the incident. You’ll go five days, maybe six, seven days, then they’ll show up for the incident.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that clarification.

A. Olsen: I think it’s important context, to add to that last statement that Chief Brown just provided, that Penelakut was the former location of the Kuper Island Residential School. Many of our families and our children were in that school.

It’s a painful recollection, the connection that the RCMP had with those schools. To now hear this really disappointing situation in which a community has been requesting service and has been looking for support for the policing…. To have it completely absent, in the context of the history of that place in our communities and in our memories, is really disappointing and really kind of breathtaking.

I know that the community has done a lot of work to heal from having that school at that location. Many of our families have been doing a lot of healing over the years. To see the very serious situation here in which…. We have it right in front of our eyes. We have this systemic discrimination playing out right in front of our eyes for this committee today.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’m just going to do one last call for any questions from our members. All right.

[11:35 a.m.]

Well, first of all, Chief Leah George-Wilson and Andrew Van Eden with the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, Chief Marilyn Slett with the Heiltsuk Nation, Chief Joan Brown and Coun. Joshua James from the Penelakut Tribe: I really want to sincerely thank you for sharing with us today how things are working out in your communities, and the personal stories. Those are valuable, and I want to thank you for the confidence in sharing those with us. It is absolutely critical in the work that we do as we move forward. On behalf of all of us here on the committee, thank you very, very much.

With that being said, any other business from the members?

Seeing none, I will call for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rachna and Harwinder.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:36 a.m.