The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Doug Routley. I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and the Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly.

I would like to begin by acknowledging, with gratitude, that I am joining today’s meeting from the traditional territories of the Malahat First Nation.

I would like to welcome all those who are listening and participating to this meeting. Our committee is undertaking a broad consultation with respect to policing and public safety in B.C. We are meeting with subject-matter experts, community advocacy organizations, Indigenous communities and others.

We also invite British Columbians to provide written, audio or video submissions. 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. That is www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/rpa. The deadline for submissions is 5 p.m. on Friday, April 30.

For these meetings, presenters have been organized into small panels. Today we will be hearing from a number of Indigenous organizations. For our first panel, we will be hearing from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, the First Nations Summit and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations.

[9:05 a.m.]

Each presenter has 15 minutes to speak, followed by questions and a discussion with committee members. We would normally have a timer on the screen, but that is not functioning at this moment. We ask all the guests to try to stay inside the 15 minutes, if possible.

All audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will be posted.

I will now ask members of the committee to introduce themselves.

R. Glumac: Hi there. I’m MLA Rick Glumac from Port Moody–Coquitlam.

I am speaking to you today from the traditional ter­ritory of the Coast Salish peoples.

R. Singh: Good morning. Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I am joining you today from the shared territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Qayqayt, Semiahmoo and Tsawwassen First Nations.

K. Kirkpatrick: Good morning, everybody. I’m Karin Kirkpatrick. I’m the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano.

I’m on the traditional lands of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam First Nations.

I do apologize now. I am going to have to log off early. I will do that quietly. I do look forward to reading what I miss on this.

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

Today I’m joining you from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I look forward to hearing from everyone. My name is Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North.

I live in Fort St. John, up here on the Dane-zaa territory.

A. Olsen: ÍY SC̸ÁĆEL. My name is Adam Olsen. I’m the MLA of the beautiful territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ.

I’m happy and thrilled to be joining you from my home here in W̱JOȽEȽP.

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

It’s my honour today to join you from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, including the Kwantlen, Katzie and Semiahmoo First Nations.

D. Routley (Chair): Assisting the committee today are Karan Riarh from the Parliamentary Committees Office and Amanda Heffelfinger from Hansard Services.

I’ll now pass off to our first presenter, Judy Wilson, secretary-treasurer for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.

Presentations on Police Act

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS,
FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT,
B.C. ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS

J. Wilson: Secwepemctsin Weytkp. Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson Skat’sin te Secwépemculecw.

I just said: “Good morning. Hello, everyone. I’m Chief Judy Wilson from Sk’atsin of the Secwépemc Nation, in our unceded territory of Secwépemc’ulucw.”

Good morning. I’d like to thank the committee for the invitation to speak on the important topic of police reform with you today.

I’m secretary-treasurer of the Union of B.C. Indian Chi­efs. I uphold the mandate of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, alongside our president, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, and vice-president, Chief Don Tom. The UBCIC advo­cates for the advancement of Aboriginal title and rights throughout B.C. and nationally, as well as internationally.

I’d like to thank my additional colleagues, Lydia Hwitsum, executive of the First Nations Summit, and Regional Chief Terry Teegee of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. Together, our organizations work collaboratively under the First Nations Leadership Council, and we advocate for and develop coordinated approaches on issues and priorities to our First Nations communities throughout B.C.

Together, the membership of the First Nations leader­ship…. Our organization is comprised of 204 First Na­tions. The mandated work of the First Nations Leadership Council is collectively directed by the nations’ governance through resolutions of the three political organizations.

The BCAFN, UBCIC and First Nations Summit have long-standing mandates received through resolutions of the chiefs and leaders to advance and uphold the rights and interests of First Nations with respect to the justice system, policing and complex social issues this special committee is tasked with considering.

However, the First Nations Leadership Council is not a nation. It does not hold Aboriginal title and rights or treaty rights. Therefore, engagement with the First Nations Leadership Council cannot be used as a substitute for direct engagement and partnership with our First Nations. We strongly encourage that proper title and rights holders are engaged, consulted, and that you seek their free, prior and informed consent.

[9:10 a.m.]

Rather, through this presentation and subsequent written submissions, we intend to amplify the voices of First Nation communities and ensure that the Police Act reform is properly situated within the broader context.

The Police Act reform occurs at a pivotal time. Policing and justice institutions in B.C. and across Canada have been challenged to reckon with disturbing levels of systemic injustice and discrimination. The gravity of this committee’s mandate cannot be overstated. For Indigenous people, it is literally a matter of life and death.

The B.C. First Nations justice strategy, which was jointly developed with the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, B.C. First Nation communities and the province of B.C., and which the First Nations Leadership Council unequivocally supports, explains that a major challenge we have faced has been backed with systemic support and implementation of proactive and preventative measures within the existing justice system. We need to follow the B.C. First Nations justice strategy road map to fundamentally transform the justice system in B.C. for both Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous people.

To ensure the Police Act is consistent with the UN dec­laration at a high level, we need to — I’ll outline a few of the issues — reduce the number of First Nations people who become involved with the criminal justice system; improve the experience for those who do; address violence against Indigenous people, especially women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals; increase the number of First Nations people working within the justice system; improve the access to justice services by Indigenous people; and support First Nations to restore their Indigenous justice systems and structures.

The justice strategy has set out a path to accomplish this along two tracks: reform and transformation. On the one hand, we must reform the justice system so it stops perpetuating harm against Indigenous people, and we must improve people’s encounters with the police and the justice system. This work is urgent work, given the prevalence of systemic racism in Canadian institutions and the broader society.

The systemic nature of racism in health care was ex­posed by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s recent report In Plain Sight. Systemic, deep and troubling issues were found in every aspect and stage of the health care system. Through numerous reports, commissions, inquiries and personal stories, we know that systemic racism is just as prevalent within the justice system. In fact, it’s ingrained in every sector.

We will not repeat the wealth of evidence today out of respect for those who have already raised their voices and contributed their truth towards numerous recommendations regarding policing and justice reform. We urge you to consider seriously the imperatives of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and two-spirit “Calls for Justice” and the recommendations in Red Women Rising: Indigenous Women Survivors in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

We further draw your attention to the report The Davies Commission Inquiry into the Death of Frank Paul; the 2009 Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Police Investigating Police; the 2011 B.C. Civil Liberties Association report Small Town Justice: A Report on the RCMP in Northern and Rural B.C.; the Oppal inquiry report Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry; the 2012 Police-Involved Deaths in B.C., a report by the BCCLA; the 2013 Human Rights Watch’s Those Who Take Us Away: Abusive Policing and Failures in Protection of Indigenous Women and Girls in Northern B.C; and the 2017 Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP regarding policing in northern British Columbia.

It is often said that the justice system is broken. How­ever, Indigenous people know that it is functioning exactly as it was intended to — to dispossess us of our lands, un­dermine our political and legal systems, criminalize our people and destroy our families. For this reason, we urge the committee to look beyond reform to transformation. We need a new foundation.

The second pathway of the B.C. First Nations justice strategy emphasizes the need to revitalize and stand up for First Nations justice systems and laws. It revolves around creating new ways of being and relating to one another as orders of government. The vision that First Nations people have for self-determined systems of justice must be recognized and upheld.

[9:15 a.m.]

We do not need to tweak policing services when it comes to First Nations people. Rather, we need a complete overhaul. We need what First Nations have never relinquished: jurisdiction over our territories and peoples based on our own legal orders, cultural protocols and our own understanding and approach to justice. In fact, in order for this work to align with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, it must recognize First Nations jurisdiction as authoritative orders of government. Section 3 of DRIPA obligates the province to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the declaration.

Police Act reform is a pressing and clear opportunity to do this properly. This would include ensuring the Police Act upholds the rights of Indigenous people to be free of any kind of discrimination; the right to self-determination and the participation in decisions that affect them; the right to liberty, peace and security; and the right to establish our own systems and institutions. This would also mean processes for consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people, including expert review of the bill by our justice and legal experts and an opportunity for our leaders to review the bill.

The Police Act modernization process must ensure that First Nation governing bodies are engaged on a government-to-government basis that respects the inherent title, rights and treaty rights of First Nations; and the government of B.C. must engage First Nation governing bodies as partners in the development of legislation.

In this case, self-determination means both recognizing First Nations jurisdiction and ensuring that First Nations have the requisite authorities and capacities to choose and develop for themselves — as they would like to see — policing, justice and community safety initiatives that operate in their territories and how those activities should be governed. It means that no one but First Nations themselves should determine how they promote well-being and community safety for their people. Whether First Nations wish to establish partnerships, service agreements or their own police services, they should be respected and empowered to do so.

Finally, a key imperative of the United Nations declaration is that proactive measures and an intersectional lens are required to promote substantive equality. We must ensure that the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person are guaranteed on an equal basis for all people, regardless of their identity and their experience.

This requires particular consideration to the rights of women, gender-diverse people, children, Elders, those living with disabilities, those living with addictions, those experiencing homelessness, those engaging in sex work, and both status and non-status First Nations, regardless of their place of residency.

I’ll now pass the floor over to my colleague Lydia.

L. Hwitsum: [Hul’q’umi’num’ was spoken.] Good day, respected ones. [Hul’q’umi’num’ was spoken.] It’s so im­portant that we’ve gathered here.

Xtli’liye is my traditional name, Lydia Hwitsum. I’m pleased to be joining you from the Quamichan village here in the territory of my Cowichan peoples.

I’m really pleased that we’ve got this opportunity to gather. I appreciate all looking at the screens, all the time you’re going to be spending staring at the screens. I appreciate your concerted attention and the importance of the presentations that we have today.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues at the First Na­tions Summit, as well, Robert Phillips and Cheryl Casimer.

I’ll move directly into the presentation. My remarks will focus on some more granular and specific changes that we’d like to see along the lines of reform — on that first of the two pieces that my colleague Chief Judy referred to, in terms of the justice strategy.

We know this: too many First Nations people have suf­fered injury, abuse and even death at the hands of the police. Together, these incidents point directly to deeply embedded racism that’s operating at systemic and at personal levels. In turn, this is responsible for very high levels of fear and mistrust and the normalization of police harassment and brutality by our peoples.

New legislation must explicitly address this systemic ra­cism — anti-Indigenous, misogynistic attitudes within in­stitutions — and really seek to remedy these.

[9:20 a.m.]

A public system review of practices and policies that disproportionately and negatively impact Indigenous peo­ples should be conducted. Data must be reported in a number of areas, including use of force, police procurement of paramilitary unit and military equipment and many others, to better understand the current reality of policing and to have those measured practices towards change. In turn, problematic practices not only must be reformed; they must be eliminated.

There are several key concerns and recommendations we’d like to highlight. One, starting with inadequate community policing functions and the militarization of police in use of force. The militarization of police goes beyond the criminalization of peaceful political demonstrations and land defenders and has implications for day-to-day policing, as well, as seen in the tragic examples of wellness checks resulting in injury and death. There is a crisis, we know, in overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples killed by use of force by police — over 15 percent, in fact, of fatal police encounters since the year 2000.

Resources must be diverted from this militarized policing approach to community policing options. For ex­ample, the practice of street checks should be completely eliminated, because they enable the arbitrary perpetuation of biases against those experiencing homelessness or pov­erty, those that use drugs, sex workers as well as those with mental health challenges. They get targeted.

The level of hyper-vigilance and surveillance involved in this practice is not conducive to healthy relationships between police and community members and creates opportunities for escalating encounters. At the same time, a defensible justification for these acts still remains wanting.

The use of all lethal weapons, restraint devices and po­lice dogs has to be eliminated. Officers must be equipped to de-escalate situations without perpetuating the vio­lence, and each of those do.

Also, searches. The searching and monitoring of Indigenous women and girls by male officers must be eliminated. Again, this piece about how each of these approaches perpetuates the escalation of violence and harm.

Moving to the input around criminalization of addictions. The decriminalization of drugs can play a key role in the presumption of diversion and ultimately the successful implementation of the path 1, the first path of reform that my colleague talked about, in terms of the B.C. First Nations justice strategy.

Recent changes to federal mandatory minimum sentences related to non-violent drug offences are a step in the right direction, but it’s imperative that both the provincial and federal governments champion initiatives and policies that provide support and programs intended to divert Indigenous peoples from the criminal justice system towards programs focused on their health — our health and wellness.

With respect to police discretion, while the discretionary powers of the police are increasingly being documen­ted and exposed through the proliferation of self-recorded evidence and the reach of social media, the extent to which they are being eroded is less clear, as police continue — and I hazard to say the word — to “enjoy” impunity and evade accountability when misconduct is involved.

Legislation must address discretion by carefully weighing the degree, scope and locus of discretion given to members of the police services with an eye towards standardizing protocols to restrict discretion and create opportunities to divert Indigenous peoples from the justice system.

So many issues come down to practice. We need a combination of strong, enforceable written guidelines that are comprehensive. The meaningful training…. There’s much to be said about training for those that must implement and oversee their practice.

[9:25 a.m.]

When it comes to training and representation, current police training is inadequate, and more focus on de-escalation and cultural safety is needed. The need for clear standards for cultural competency and a consistent and systematic training program regarding First Nations people in the justice system has been identified by all actors as a critical aspect of moving away from the discriminatory lens of Indigenous Peoples.

While there are various forms of training taking place in different parts of the system, there’s a real need for a coherent and consistent approach. That’s needed so that core practices are being reinforced — I’ll repeat: reinforced — throughout the system. In addition to this, more Indigenous people must be recruited in the law enforcement roles at all levels.

The training and standards are especially important when it comes to vulnerable populations and issues such as sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence, mental illness, homelessness, substance use and child welfare in that context. For example, we need guidelines throughout the province to support the safety of sex workers, and better protocols for communication between police, family and housing organizations. Too often we see people falling through the cracks.

We must explicitly prioritize an evidence-informed, tra­uma-informed, non-punitive, destigmatizing and harm-reduction-focused approach throughout policing standards and within police training. We recommend that these types of issues must be given much more emphasis at the outset, as well as throughout members’ careers. All members should have thorough training in de-escalation, implicit bias, intercultural competency, trauma-informed practice and on-the-ground training and education with the local First Nations that they serve.

We must ensure appropriate protections — my collea­gue spoke of this — for women, girls and gender-diverse people and ensure accountability when officers fail to practise and uphold the best practices and standards.

In his final report of 2012, Commissioner Wally Oppal concluded that “the initiation and conduct of the missing and murdered women investigations were a blatant failure.” The commission attributed these failures to “(1) discrimination, system institutional bias, and political and public indifference; (2) a want of leadership; (3) poor systems, limited and outdated policing approaches and standards; (4) fragmentation of policing” services. In addition, just in the balance of this piece, (5) “inadequate resources” and also the allocation of resources; (6) “police force structure and culture” as well as “personnel issues and inadequate training,” which I spoke to a little bit earlier; and the (7) “allegations of conspiracy and cover-up.”

More must be done to ensure that these recommendations arising from this report must be implemented. I’m sorry. I didn’t say that this is with respect to the Downtown Eastside report by Commissioner Wally Oppal.

Moreover, we really need to equip and integrate a whole host of community-based service providers who provide front-line and wraparound services into our models of community safety, with the aim of reducing the presence of police officers where not required and increasing the presence of community advocates. Unfortunately, these organizations tend to be underfunded and are reduced to competing for project funds under onerous and sometimes bureaucratic administrative and evaluative frameworks. A vital part of our crime prevention, in the context of police reform, is that Indigenous-led service providers have security of funding.

The Missing and Murdered Women’s final report found systemic underfunding. The 2019 Path Forward: Women and Girls Safety Community Sessions Action Plan focused on the need for healing, supports and safe spaces, capacity and resources.

[9:30 a.m.]

I’ll point to one example of how high community priorities can show a way to improving safety, but also in this example, where…. Even when local communities attempt to democratically shift or cap resources, the Police Act unelected police boards appeal their decision.

Recently Vancouver city council passed a budget to fre­eze police spending at $340 million. But because of the Police Act allowing police boards to appeal to a provincial director of police services, the Vancouver police board asked the director to overturn the council decision and allocate a $5.7 million increase. This is not citizen accountability.

Finally, I just want to speak to accountability and oversight. There have long been calls for an independent oversight and accountability of function to address the concerns regarding Indigenous people in the justice system. A principled approach to police oversight demands that complaints about conduct of all persons exercising power under the Police Act should be subject to independent oversight.

To restore trust will require civilian and Indigenous ov­ersight and accountability mechanisms which are transparent, timely, well-resourced and equipped with a broad mandate of enforceable recommendations. In review of the data regarding the police complaints commission, we found that less than half of registered complaints were considered admissible, only a fraction of those were in­vestigated, and the vast majority of the complaints were investigated and called unsubstantiated. Few matters moved to discipline proceedings and even fewer received public disciplinary hearings. Often, officers, we see, get a verbal or written reprimand.

If an independent civilian oversight body were fully res­ponsible for these investigations and findings, Indigenous members of the public might have more confidence that they are procedurally fair and proper. However, because the investigations are conducted by the police departments themselves, the result is that Indigenous people in urban areas rarely consider filing a formal police complaint.

Currently the OPCC commissioner also has no authority to substantially investigate policy-level allegations. Our concern is that discriminatory practice is hidden within policy, and service complaints go under-investigated.

Just in the last bit here, the commissioner should — we suggested three things — have the discretion to retain jurisdiction over investigations of misconduct rather than forward them to the police departments; have the discretion to retain jurisdiction over policy and service complaints and, if deemed necessary, conduct systematic reviews rather than monitor policy issues at arm’s length; have free-standing power to hold public hearings, call witnesses and commission evidence — in short, the power to become their own mini-commission of inquiry if a systemic issue is raised.

A more accessible complaints process, a broader definition of “serious harm” as it relates to what can be investigated by oversights, including sexual assault, psychological harm and less serious physical injuries.

The B.C. Ombudsman has also raised concerns that jail guards in RCMP-run municipal jails are not subject to oversight either by the OPCC or by the RCMP’s Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. It’s an important and concerning issue that directly affects Indigenous peo­ples in municipalities throughout B.C. We urge this gap to be urgently addressed.

Further, we urge that RCMP under the CRCC be bro­ught under a B.C.-specific oversight body in the effort to facilitate more timely and accountable investigations under the model we have put forward.

I’ll leave my comments there. [Hul’q’umi’num’ was spo­ken.] Thankful for this opportunity.

I’ll pass now to our B.C. regional chief, Terry Teegee.

T. Teegee: Thank you, Lydia.

Mussi cho. Members of the Legislative Assembly, to this committee, I just want to thank you for allowing us some time to present to you.

Good morning. My name is Terry Teegee. I’m the Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, serving my second term. I am a member of the Takla Nation.

First of all, I just want to recognize all the Indigenous territories we are all calling from and also recognize the continued occupancy of our peoples since time immemorial.

[9:35 a.m.]

In my language, in our Dakelh language, we call the pol­ice officers nilhchuk-un. What nilhchuk-un means is “those who take us away.” And why we identify them as those who take us away is the fact that they were the police officers that took our children away during the residential school times.

The gravity of the issue highlighted by Kúkpi7 Wilson and also Lydia and the others who have presented to this committee regarding First Nations’ experiences with pol­ice must be dealt with squarely if we are to have any hope of restoring trust within the policing system. Revisiting the jurisdictional considerations raised by Kúkpi7 Wilson, we must also raise the ongoing issue of criminalization of Indigenous activists and land defenders.

In 2020, the RCMP’s implementation and enforcement of the exclusion zone in the Wet’suwet’en territory in­fringed upon the inherent title and rights of the Wet’su­wet’en citizens. A large contingent of RCMP were brought in and prepared to use lethal force against land defenders. Language such as “rule of law,” “national security” and “radicalized protestors” serves to delegitimize the laws, authority and legitimate interests of Indigenous communities involved.

In Coast Salish territories, Indigenous elders, knowledge-keepers and youth have been incarcerated for peaceful non-consent, with one land defender recently sentenced to 90 days in prison. This is despite an updated Crown counsel policy directive to pursue alternatives to prosecution for Indigenous persons.

As noted in Red Women Rising, part of the government strategy to dispossess Indigenous lands is to criminalize Indigenous people. The use of the RCMP — in some cases, military, paramilitary forces — and the criminal justice system to arrest and charge Indigenous people with trespass, obstruction, unlawful assembly and criminal contempt for violating civil injunctions has actively undermined Indigenous rights.

Targeted surveillance encroachment onto First Nations territory and disregard for First Nations law by the RCMP is unacceptable and not aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We must also address the issue of lack of policing and public safety services. First Nations people find themselves simultaneously over-policed and under-protected, which result in different but serious safety gaps and which are similarly rooted in racism, sexism and colonialism.

You’ve also heard from other presenters about the issues First Nations encounter in receiving adequate policing response. Remote communities are particularly challenged in accessing the most basic levels of policing services, not to mention victim services and other wraparound supports.

The lack of public safety capacity with First Nations communities represents a crisis. First Nations people are more likely to be victims of violent crime. In B.C., in 2018, 60.11 percent of First Nations peoples reported they have experienced violent victimization since the age of 15, compared to 42 percent among non-Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous women and girls experience violent victimization at a rate 2.7 times that of non-Indigenous women and girls. According to the national inquiry final report, Indigenous women made up roughly 16 percent of all female homicides between 1980 and 2012, despite making up only 4 percent of the female population. Indigenous women and girls now make up 24 percent of the female homicide victims.

While addressing the root causes of this violence is key to transformational change, it is important that when First Nations people do seek help from police and first responders, they do receive it. A critical gap in the existing legislative framework is the ability for First Nations to effectively enforce and prosecute their own bylaws and laws.

[9:40 a.m.]

While the Police Act reform cannot wholly deal with this issue, it should take into account the critical need for First Nations governments to be able to enforce their laws and undertake community safety and prevention initiatives, either through their own dedicated services or in partnership with federal and provincial governments. We’ve certainly seen that during this pandemic, where many First Nations wanted to protect their communities by having checkpoints in and out of their communities.

Currently there are gaps in jurisdictional coordination regarding the order of government that is responsible for prosecution. Often, neither the provincial nor the federal government will choose to prosecute, and First Nations governments typically do not have the capacity to dedicate the financial resources required for prosecution. The result is that many police forces ignore First Nations bylaws. This contributes to the lack of public safety and is part of the broader issue of underprotection experienced by First Nations communities. Moreover, it demonstrates a fundamental gap in the recognition of First Nations jurisdiction.

In addition to the challenges of enforcing bylaws, there is a greater challenge of enforcing First Nations laws, especially those that may not align with federal and provincial government law. First Nations may also wish to decide to have their own police force, first responders, social service professionals or other community-led bodies to respond to incidents or infractions within their territory. How to go about prosecution or undertake another approach to resolution and enforcement, such as a process based on traditional practices and laws?

To address these challenges, the legislative framework should set a strong basis for enhancing partnerships, co­ordination, integration and communication in First Na­tions jurisdictions within all sectors.

The First Nations policing program, known as FNPP, is another prime example of how under-resourcing contributes to basic gaps in public safety. The FNPP is intended to provide policing services that are over and above the level of policing services provided under the provincial police service agreement and that are professional, effective, culturally appropriate and accountable to the communities they serve. However, according to the report Toward Peace, Harmony, and Well-Being: Policing in Indigenous Communities, since its inception, the program has suffered from a range of problems, including insufficient resources and support.

Rather than augmenting existing police services, as was the intention, FNPP funding is often used to provide basic services, often in ways that are not sufficient, given the challenges faced in many Indigenous communities. Yet the RCMP in B.C. has been operating with vacancies under the FNPP in order to stay within budget, as funding under the current framework agreement has failed to cover rising police costs. This means that First Nations communities will continue to experience underfunded and inadequate policing. Further underfunding has meant that the program is not able to accommodate new communities that are interested in participating in the FNPP.

Underfunding of such elementary components of policing has real implications to the FNPP’s ability to meet its goals of enhanced culturally appropriate policing. The limited number of officers per community is often stretched thin. They spend their time attending to basic policing functions. Community consultative groups and letters of expectations — key mechanisms by which communities are meant to liaise and develop priorities with local RCMP detachments and FNPP officers — are difficult to sustain and regularly monitor for accountability.

In addition to underfunding, there are aspects of the community tripartite agreements, known as CTAs, that hinder the FNPP’s ability to deliver truly enhanced, culturally appropriate policing. The short-term nature of agreements makes long-term strategic planning challenging. Without this ability, community leadership is not able to effectively build vision and capacity around community safety needs. Lack of protection is also evidenced in inadequate police response to the issue of missing and murd­ered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

[9:45 a.m.]

While the federal government has announced additional funding for First Nations policing in recent years, these funds are not sufficient to bridge the gap created by chronic program-based funding. Further, while increased sustainable funding is direly required, on its own it is not the solution. There is opportunity to fundamentally transform the FNPP into the policing model that upholds self-determination and meets community needs.

On December 9, 2020, Minister Bill Blair announced funding to further support the AFN to begin discussion on full development of legislation which recognizes First Nations policing as an essential service. Even though it’s been highlighted for me for collaborative engagement with provincial partners, a legislative basis that recognizes in­herent title rights and treaty rights of First Nations would provide an appropriate foundation for closing the gap in policing services.

While responding to the imperatives of the United Na­tions declaration, the TRC calls to action and the calls for justice, we urge the special committee to fully engage with matters such as First Nations policing, which currently intersects with both federal and provincial mandates. While provincial work is crucial, it will take partnership and collaboration with federal partners as well. This type of tripartite work is envisioned in the B.C. First Nations justice strategy and is also relevant as we seek commitments towards a national Indigenous justice strategy.

With that, I’ll conclude by urging you to use the United Nations declaration as a benchmark for this work and to continue to seek engagement with First Nations. I thank you, and I thank my colleagues, for this presentation today. We look forward to your questions.

Mussi cho.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you to all of our presenters this morning.

Now I’d open the floor to questions from committee members.

G. Begg: Thanks, everyone, for a great presentation.

My question, I think, is probably directed to Terry. You said that the RCMP were reluctant to enforce anything but federal or provincial law and that they would ignore First Nations law. By that, do you mean band bylaws, or what?

T. Teegee: For some of this, it is the band bylaws, considering the fact that in lieu…. If you look at the United Nations declaration, it talks about Indigenous governing bodies, and really, that’s up to our First Nations commun­ities — that we constitute ourselves. Some of them do have their own Indigenous governing bodies — for example, the Wet’suwet’en — and our traditional ways of governing ourselves, using the potlatch system.

Outside of federal jurisdiction on the land, I would say that other laws as well…. In the meantime, I think that one of the issues here during this pandemic was the passing of First Nations laws to protect their communities from this virus and saying that they wanted to put up some bylaws to make sure that, within their communities, there are no gatherings, as there is infection from outsiders within the communities. That needs to be upheld.

I think one of the things that we’re trying to work out here with the province and with the federal government — especially with the province, considering that it is law — is the legal pluralism between our governments in making sure that First Nations law is upheld.

G. Begg: Didn’t you say as well, Terry, that the reluc­tance may be because the federal and provincial Crown would not prosecute — the bylaws?

T. Teegee: Yes, and that’s a bit of a problem here in terms of where do they prosecute in terms of laws. I think it really speaks to having something set up in terms of…. I know in other traditional territories throughout North America, the First Nations do have their own courts and their own justice system. I think that’s something we’re really looking forward to.

[9:50 a.m.]

It really is a part of our justice strategy — to start looking ahead and to make sure that we set up our own legal systems and that our local First Nations have some legal recourse within our justice system and laws. I think that’s really something where, if there is a law broken within our communities and whatnot, those people have to be brought forward to some sort of justice system. I think in this case, they perhaps have to come to the provincial courts and that has to be upheld.

It also speaks to the agreements that whatever police officers are out there — usually the RCMP and the communities, these tripartite agreements — and how laws are upheld.

G. Begg: Chair, one quick further question, if I might. It’s directly related to the answer to the last question.

I wonder if there are other jurisdictions in Canada of which you are aware that you would point us to that have what you would consider to be a better system of dealing with these issues.

T. Teegee: I believe there is just south of us, in Coast Salish territory, in Washington. But this is out of country. I know in Oklahoma, they do have their own courts. I believe also — I may stand corrected here — that in Mohawk territory, they do have their own ways of dealing with a court system.

G. Begg: That’s Mohawk territory in Ontario and Quebec?

T. Teegee: Here in British Columbia, we do have….

G. Begg: I’m sorry. When you referred to Mohawk territory, are you talking about…?

T. Teegee: Sorry, my….

D. Routley (Chair): I think we are not hearing you, Terry.

T. Teegee: My Internet is unstable.

J. Wilson: This is Chief Wilson. Maybe I could interject.

I know there are agreements in communities in B.C. and other jurisdictions where Crown governments will uphold and prosecute First Nations laws. This is where we need to go with legal pluralism. I believe it’s a K’ómoks First Nation decision prosecuting a landlord-tenant issue. We probably could get more information on that from our technical and legal group.

I just wanted to mention that in Kamloops, we have Aboriginal court. My mother is one of the Elders that serves as the advisory for that court. They work right directly with the judge. I know in Merritt, they just set up Aboriginal court as well. One of the things we are working on was bringing child and family court to the Aboriginal court. It has made a tremendous amount of difference, but they need more resources and support in transforming the work that they do to take on more.

The Elders are also cognizant that it’s how the child and family delegated model came about, where the province was delegating it on us. The Elders are saying that they didn’t want a delegated legal imposition on them to exercise their laws and jurisdiction in dealing with some of the people that come through the courtroom. But they’ve helped a lot of individuals on circles and a lot of individuals in getting resources and support that they need. So there are some examples right in the court systems now, but they just need more resources and support.

Then the case with the K’ómoks land-tenant one. We’re trying to find the issue of that case.

A. Olsen: HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank you for your presentations, Chief Hwitsum and Chief Wilson and Chief Teegee.

I can’t help but just repeat something that I think Chief Teegee said. I think that it kind of perfectly articulates what we’ve been hearing in this, in that Indigenous people find themselves simultaneously over-policed and underprotected. That is encapsulating, in a single sentence, the articulation of so many.

[9:55 a.m.]

I just have a couple of questions here, with respect to the process going forward, so that we can be very clear and that we can, I think, start to lay a groundwork as the ministry takes our recommendations and the kind of recommendations that we would be looking to draft for the ministry with respect to the consultation process with whatever legislation that they draft.

I think what’s really important here is that there is a very clear pathway and a very clear indication of those expectations.

I know that in the DRIPA, in the development of the declaration, the government took some unique steps to ensure that there was engagement all the way through that process. Could you maybe provide just some comments on what the expectation is from the First Nations Leadership Council and what involvement the First Nations Leadership Council might have as the ministry drafts the legislation, or the amendments to the Police Act, so we don’t get to a situation where we’re standing in the Legislature debating this and we’ve got a situation where there’s some confusion about the level of engagement and the expectations of consultation.

J. Wilson: Well, with Bill 41, as you’re aware, it set out a better process, not a perfect process, for involving our proper titleholders. But it did set out a direction on what we should be doing when we’re developing or co-developing legislation. That was sort of the only benchmark we have so far, but we would expect it to exceed it in the alignment of laws and the legislation and policies that we’re working on and in regulations.

I would imagine there should have been a proper process where NDAs were signed with our chiefs. I know our legal counsel went over Bill 41 with the chiefs, and the chiefs had their review and their input. So far, that’s as far as we got, but we’d like to go further in regard to how that free, prior and informed consent and engagement process may work with our chiefs.

The leadership council was also afforded an NDA, and we were able to review the legislation as well, with Bill 41. So if we can have the legislation work in that way, that would be more fulsome in regard to having input into this legislation.

L. Hwitsum: If I can just add a bit to that.

As this process unfolds, and with respect to the implementation of DRIPA and how that impacts the direction with respect to alignment of laws, one of the things that we have to continue, to build infrastructure around First Nations, is support for that framework. We’ve been getting information. As Chief Wilson said, we get NDAs and we get sent information, but we need to build that real framework for engagement where there’s a meaningful opportunity to not just say: “Look, I got this package in the mail.” When I get them, I look at them, without the benefit of the analysis that goes into these documents.

It’s a very complicated process. Internally, with respect to this act and others going forward, the First Nations Leadership Council has been looking to put to government a process to engage meaningfully when it comes to the opportunity to not only get information, review it, do the level of analysis that’s necessary, and legitimately give that feedback that you’re looking for in terms of going forward around having engaged with Indigenous peoples.

We are at the implementation stage. That framework needs to be funded. We find ourselves, each of our organizations — you know, get your legal counsel, do this…. We cannot piecemeal this. When it comes to this act and others, we’re looking to put forward and looking at a process where we can be meaningfully engaged. It’s all to the benefit of all of us in the implementation of DRIPA and the development of governance that that jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples is recognized and that we can meaningfully…. It can make a really huge difference in terms of addressing racism, in terms of addressing a whole range of disproportionate impacts on our people based on the laws of this province.

I’ll pause there — just to add to what my colleagues have said.

[10:00 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I think it’s important that we just pause to acknowledge that. We are still quite early in the process, and there is an opportunity between now and when these recommendations come forward and the ministries are developing the legislation. There’s a time between now and then to make sure that this process is correct. This will be a major first test, or next test, of that. I certainly don’t want to be at that next stage of the process and hear that this work was not done in the meantime.

The second and final question, if I may, Chair.

With respect to the comments that were made around the localized training. I mean, there’s the broad de-escalation training that was raised, as well as cultural sensitivity training, and then, as I’ve become aware, just travelling around the province, the need to understand each individual nation within the province and the different cultural aspects of that.

Would the First Nations Leadership Council be the group that we would be looking to, to develop, maybe, a program that could assist, with the different police forces across the province, to establish a framework to get to and to deliver or to develop a program for individual nations to be able to welcome new police officers into their territories and give them that introduction to the culture and that introduction to the territory which is so often missing? Is there a receptivity to that?

I guess I’m just setting the stage for future conversations on that.

J. Wilson: Adam, I’m not sure, but I think the justice council strategy had some similar recommendations on how to approach the training and cultural sensitivity in the different justice institutes. I think it’s very valuable, very important to do that. I think the justice council had input from all our First Nations, most of them, across B.C.

It’s really important, as I think Lydia, in her section, talked about — the implementation of the justice council strategy. I believe it was woven in all of our statements here today. Instead of, I think, a top-down approach, we should be looking at a better approach on that.

It is very critical, what you’re saying about the police training. I think it’s more than just cultural sensitivity. I think what we’re talking about here today is genocide and also about the issues of racism in the police system and justice system. So we do have to go a bit further than just cultural sensitivity.

I know with the leadership council, we have been en­gaged with the justice council and many of the nations. We would support a process for it, but it would be directions form our Chiefs and councils that we would need. But I’m pretty positive it’s in the First Nations justice strategy already.

L. Hwitsum: Just very briefly adding to that. Yes, we do find, within the context of the B.C. First Nations justice strategy that we’ve all signed on to — the feds, the province and First Nations — a framework. There are strategies within the existing system for reform, and then there are the transformative aspects that we know need to be undertaken.

When it comes to the training, the sensitivity…. The piece about the localized aspect is…. We have people pro­viding service in community. There are champions in communities. There are families in communities. There is community knowledge. All of these pieces can help provide for better community safety, in the operation of policing, with that connection to communities.

Yes, the higher-level knowledge and training, in terms of the colonial aspect and the impacts on our people that have them on the off-ramp to disproportionate representation in the justice system, for our people…. That part of it….

I just wanted to respond to the localized piece. Yes, all these other pieces…. We need to know the communities we’re working in as well as the impacts they’ve faced.

R. Singh: Thank you to all the presenters for coming here and for your presentations. What you have said today we have heard before. You coming and making that presentation…. I think it’s extremely important to reiterate that that has been said in a number of our presentations. So thank you so much.

[10:05 a.m.]

We have heard and are aware of the mistrust and the broken relationship that Indigenous communities have with the police. It is intergenerational. It is not something that is just in the last few years. It is what has been happening.

Moving forward, we have heard a lot about hiring more people from the Indigenous communities. Training is just one aspect. Just seeing the whole process from this antiracist lens, having that knowledge…. We have heard that.

How does the community feel, especially this week with Justice Leonard Marchand’s appointment to the Court of Appeal? Do you think that something like that is a step forward?

L. Hwitsum: I’ll just step in very briefly.

Yeah, absolutely. This is part of the reform aspect of the B.C. First Nations justice strategy as well. It’s to get our Indigenous Peoples into positions of power that are im­bued with these powers to make decisions over the lives of Indigenous Peoples so you have more diversity of thought, and it’s not a majority white lens judging our people.

It’s the direction we need to go with respect to more at all levels as well. But also to recognize that, as I think my colleague had talked about, it’s respecting the jurisdiction of Indigenous Peoples to build a policing system as well, within their own peoples, that can jump some of those hurdles of the longstanding discriminatory lens that we seem to be judged by.

Just adding those couple of things there.

R. Singh: Thank you so much. Just one more comment. You have touched upon it, having their own police forces.

With the broken mistrust…. Is there an appetite or room for the Indigenous populations to be part of the pol­ice system that is already existing — to be part of, for example, the RCMP? I know the relationship and the history of the RCMP with the Indigenous populations and the mistrust there. But is there room? Is that something that the Indigenous youth are interested in? Or do they see it as…? We are looking at a very broken system that cannot be fixed.

J. Wilson: I think it needs to be a multi-pronged ap­proach. I think that’s what the B.C. First Nations justice strategy is talking about. It’s talking about the existing system and then how we have our own systems that are building up that we have the rights to.

Also, we’ve got judges appointed. We’ve got the appeals court — Len Marchand, who you’re talking about. We’ve had several placements.

I think that’s a good direction but not to forget what Ly­dia is saying — that we need to have our own Indigen­ous systems as well. We do need the additional people placed in the system that’s operating now, because that’s how we will reform it — by our presence and by these different people that are in those places that can make those changes and understand the issues we’re going through.

It needs to be a multi-pronged approach. I believe that’s what we are supporting. Maybe our regional Chief might add more to it.

R. Singh: I really appreciate that.

T. Teegee: Yeah. Not only representation within the pol­ice force. I think within the police force, there needs to be a real culture change. I think that’s what we’re really looking at. If you talk to Indigenous ex–police officers who either worked in the Vancouver city police or the RCMP, they experienced racism themselves as police officers within the police force.

What we’re looking for is a real culture change, not only in the RCMP and the health care system but also government too. We’re asking for a culture change within the Legislature, within parliament, to really look at themselves in terms of how they see Indigenous Peoples, how they see racialized peoples. I think that that really needs to happen for systemic change and to fight racism in this country we call Canada.

R. Singh: Thank you so much. Thank you. I really ap­preciate that.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, Members, for your questions. I don’t see any more questions.

I’d like to thank our guests. All of the presentations have been enlightening for the committee. We will be going through a fairly long process, a phased process, of taking in information and then processing it.

[10:10 a.m.]

As we go forward, as I ask all presenters, I hope you’d be willing to help us if we need to reach out to you again. Or if you would like to contribute further, you know where we are. We welcome that.

T. Teegee: If I could say one last thing.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes, please.

T. Teegee: Our thoughts and prayers are out to Julian Jones’s family, the man shot in Tla-o-qui-aht, the same community as Chantel Moore, who was shot in a wellness check in New Brunswick. My cousin Everett Patrick was killed in Prince George while being incarcerated. A number of First Nations have died in this province, in many jurisdictions or communities.

I think for me, being a relative and knowing some of the people…. A Wet’suwet’en man, Dale Culver, and Clayton Willey — the list goes on. Frank Paul, at the hands of Vancouver police.

It demonstrates why we need systemic change and an overhaul in the policing system. I think it’s really the gravity of the situation. What’s at your hands right now is really important, and we’re certainly here to help. We want to make the systemic change that’s needed within the policing system.

I just want to thank you for the time. Musi.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you for those reminders. We look forward to the broad task in front of us, with the partnership of so many people.

Thank you very much for your presentations.

Members, thank you for your questions.

J. Wilson: [Secwepemctsin was spoken.] Everybody stay safe.

L. Hwitsum: Huy ch q’u siem. Thank you.

D. Routley (Chair): Members, the committee will re­cess until 10:30, when our next presenters are scheduled. Thank you, all.

The committee recessed from 10:12 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): I’d welcome everybody back to this meeting of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act.

My name is Doug Routley. I’m the MLA for Nanaimo–​North Cowichan, Chair of the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging with gratitude that I’m joining today’s meeting from the territory of the Malahat First Nation.

At this point, I’ll ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, beginning with the Deputy Chair, MLA Davies.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Hi. Good morning, everyone. Dan Davies. I’m the MLA for Peace River North.

I live in Fort St. John on the traditional territory of the Dane-zaa.

Welcome.

R. Singh: Rachna Singh, the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers.

I am joining you from the shared territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, Kwikwetlem, Semiahmoo and Tsaw­wassen First Nations.

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

It is my honour today to join you from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, including the Kwantlen, Katzie and Semiahmoo First Nations.

A. Olsen: ÍY SC̸ÁĆEL. Adam Olsen, the MLA for Sa­anich North and the Islands.

Very happy to be working today from W̱SÁNEĆ in the W̱JOȽEȽP village.

R. Glumac: MLA Rick Glumac for Port Moody–​Coquitlam.

I am on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish people.

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

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

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, all.

For our next panel, we’ll be hearing from the B.C. First Nations Justice Council and the directors forum, representing Delegated Aboriginal Agencies of B.C.

I’ll note that for these meetings, each presenter has 15 minutes to speak. We have a timer available to assist. I’ll also remind everyone that the audio from our meetings is broadcast live on our website, and a complete transcript will also be posted.

Now I’ll introduce Doug White from the B.C. First Nations Justice Council, for his presentation.

B.C. FIRST NATIONS JUSTICE COUNCIL

D. White: Ah siem ne siyeya. Aintha pe Kwul’a’sul’tun tu ni Snuneymuxw. Aintha pe Tliishin tu ni Huupacasaht. Ai ne sqwalawun qwunus iih ee. Hycepka Siem.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Doug White. I am the chair of the B.C. First Nations Justice Council. My Coast Salish name is Kwul’a’sul’tun. My Nuu-chah-nulth name is Tliishin.

I’m talking to you from Snuneymuxw territory up here in Nanaimo, where we have a treaty from 1854 that is in­tended to structure relations between the Snuneymuxw people and the Crown.

It’s a great pleasure. I want to acknowledge the committee and the opportunity to speak, the invitation to come and share the important work of the B.C. First Nations Justice Council and the government of British Columbia with you in relation to your mandate to review the Police Act.

This is, obviously, a historic opportunity and an important imperative to make some changes that recognize and reflect the issues and challenges and the problems and the different kinds of omissions that exist in the existing justice system. I think that it’s universally recognized, and it’s never been a more high-profile issue in our country — some of the real problems that do exist and the real imperative for change.

I really do believe we’re in the defining moment in Indigenous Peoples and Crown relations. I think that it’s a moment of opportunity and imperative for change. The work that you have, the mandate that you have, is an important one. I want to talk about….

[10:35 a.m.]

I’ll quickly just let you know that the B.C. First Nations Justice Council was created a number of years ago, in 2015, by the 203 First Nations of British Columbia through the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which you heard from earlier today, to deal with and grapple with problems in the justice system of systemic racism that manifest in the mass incarceration of our people in jails and of our children in care. A very serious mandate.

Out of all of the work that I do, I often let people know that this is work that causes me to lose sleep. Out of all of the work that I’m involved in, this work is some of the most essential and urgent. In this work, we’ve found a partner in the government of British Columbia to start to create change. In 2017, we entered into an historic MOU with B.C. for the first time, where the government of British Columbia asked for partnership with First Nations to start to talk about the very structure and foundations of the justice system. This is something that we’ve never been included in, never been involved in.

The most recent example is the Cowper report, the mandate bestowed upon Geoffrey Cowper to look into modernizing the criminal justice system in B.C. for the 21st century, back in 2012. Indigenous peoples weren’t asked to shape his mandate when he conducted his work. He didn’t include us in his work. When he issued his 300-page report, he only had one paragraph about Aboriginal peoples. What he said was: “I know this is a real problem and an issue in the justice system, but it’s beyond the scope of my mandate to address.” That was only in 2012. So we’ve come a long way in looking for that real partnership.

A year ago, March 2020, we got to the First Nations jus­tice strategy two weeks before the pandemic really hit. It has two main pathways to it. One is about reforming the existing system to make it less harmful and more appropriate for our people. The second is a little bit longer-term work, and it’s certainly not the work of a justice council. It’s the work of all of us to create the space and the opportunity for Indigenous peoples in alignment with UNDRIP and their section 35 rights, their inherent rights to be self-determining, to be able to exercise and implement that self-determination in the context of justice. So the second major pathway of the justice strategy is in that stream.

I want to talk about policing. I want to start by just sim­ply acknowledging and talking about the origin story of policing in our country, where it comes from, because I really believe that that story has never changed from the outset. That’s a serious problem. That is a major part of what configures the reality that we experience as Indigenous peoples today.

When I think about policing as a Snuneymuxw person, the first thing that comes to mind is our first experience with policing. It was not quite policing but a militia of Governor Douglas, who believed that he was chasing two accused Indigenous men — one the son of a Snuneymuxw Chief, another from Cowichan. Governor Douglas gath­ered up the Voltigeurs and the military and chased them down and held a trial.

It was the very first jury trial in B.C. history, in what became British Columbia. It was held in January of 1852, here in Nanaimo harbour, where they captured the men. They put them on the deck of the navy ship. Governor Douglas sat as the judge. The jury was not a jury of the peers of those two Indigenous men. The jury was a jury of naval officers.

They were tried and convicted, and they were hanged from a tree at Gallows Point on the south end of Protection Island in front of the Sneuneymuxw people and other In­digenous peoples. Our very first experience with policing in this province, that I’m aware of, resulted in the death of two Indigenous men, summarily executed.

[10:40 a.m.]

We know that across the country, the RCMP is born out of the North West Mounted Police, which had a very specific mandate of controlling and dealing with Indigenous Peoples, displacing them to ensure the opening up of western Canada. It was a very specific mandate, one of control and oppression.

Later on, the RCMP has played important roles in the apprehension of children for residential school systems. I’m sure my colleague Mary Teegee might touch upon that issue. It’s a grim reality that shapes, in the minds of Indigenous Peoples, a very traumatic reality. There can be no deeper trauma than having your children torn from your family, torn from your home.

Now, that’s the backdrop and the origin story of policing. I want you to know that continues. That origin story continues to structure the reality of policing in our pro­vince. It’s part of the story of the mass incarceration of Indigenous People. You heard statistics earlier today from regional Chief Teegee about that fact.

It has to do with the mass apprehension of First Nations children, previously for the residential school system and now for the MCFD system. It has to do with the suppres­sion of Indigenous protest, as we saw last year in the We­t’suwet’en.

There are some supplementary materials here. We’re going to be submitting a major written document to you in the next bit of time.

For today’s purposes, there’s a document that, on page 8, has some pictures of the approach to removing some pieces of plywood on a bridge. It’s effectively a military ap­proach. We understand, from transcripts from the RCMP, from meeting notes, that there was a discussion by commanding officers of the RCMP to ensure that there was lethal oversight as part of that mission to remove that blockade. The excessive use of force and militarization are significant problems.

On page 7 of the supplementary materials I’ve provided to you, there’s some imagery from about a year ago in downtown Prince George. There was a young Lake Babine man. The late Everett Patrick was being arrested by the RCMP. They decided to send the emergency response team. When you look at that imagery, what you will see is that it looks like a military occupation of downtown Prince George. It doesn’t look like a police activity.

When I was reviewing the footage in recent weeks about that arrest, from the Prince George news, something cau­ght my eye on the helmet of one of those police officers. I refer you to page 7 of those materials to take a look at what he had on his helmet. If you don’t have it in front of you, what he had on his helmet was a sticker of a skull, some kind of imagery of death.

It made me wonder about the culture of policing and about the militarization of policing and how that encourages a certain kind of approach and disposition. The military goes to war. Policing is intended to protect the public.

When we send militarized police to go and arrest Everett Patrick and they have an armoured vehicle, they’re wearing full combat gear with machine guns, they have dogs with them, and they’re wearing emblems of death on their helmets, I’ve got to tell you: I don’t know what any other possible outcome there could have been.

Okay. So we know all of that. Now we need to…. What we have to do is we have to craft a new story together for policing in this country and in this province. That’s our work, our imperative. That’s the opportunity in front of us.

We’ve heard from the TRC and the murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls inquiry report. We know UNDRIP is now there as an imperative for change. We have the B.C. First Nations justice strategy, which frames the pathways that we need to be on together.

[10:45 a.m.]

I want to note, simply for the record, that the First Na­tions Justice Council…. To my knowledge, no other First Nation was involved in setting the terms of your mandate for this Police Act review. I do want to note that I understand the leadership council, earlier today, shared that your work should not be considered part of the response to the DRIPA act bringing into alignment provincial law with the United Nations declaration.

With respect to governance, in terms of some key rec­ommendations…. As I said, we’re going to have an ex­tensive written report to you in a number of days. But I want to talk to you quickly about track 1, in terms of reform of the existing system. That’s to do with governance and oversight, and police and First Nations relations.

When I think about the Police Act, the opportunity in the Police Act and the scope and the possibility that you have in front of you not just to tinker with an existing system or to make minor change but to really recognize that there’s a fundamental problem in the fact that Indigenous peoples are excluded in the command and control of policing in this province, that we’re not part of the governance of policing…. That is part of the real problem that plays out. Police know that they are not accountable to us.

With respect to governance, I think that we need to look and see where and how, on pathway 1 of reforming the existing system, we can include Indigenous peoples in governance on police boards. You’ve got a real problem in the Police Act where you effectively contract with the RCMP, and you leave the internal administration and governance of the RCMP to the federal government. So through the Police Act and the provincial police agreement that you have from 2012, with Canada, to bring the RCMP into B.C. as a provincial police force, you really delegate and hand over any possibility of real management and control over the RCMP to Canada.

Those are things that can be fixed. We need to find ways to create space for Indigenous peoples to be a part of this governance of policing. That includes both the provincial police force and municipal police forces.

Two, we have to look at existing oversight mechanisms and how to properly include Indigenous peoples. In the First Nations justice strategy, you’ll see that we have worked to create an independent Aboriginal oversight mechanism in the province with respect to policing.

On track 2, under the First Nations justice strategy, we know we need to do the work of reviewing and reforming the Police Act in a way that creates space and opportunity for Indigenous peoples down the road. We have the St’át’imc already, north of Whistler and around Lillooet. That is the one First Nations police force we have in the province. But if there are other nations that want to be on that pathway, then we need to aggressively work to create that opportunity and that space.

My final couple of comments are about two other major areas. With respect to militarization of police, I don’t want to see that. I don’t want my children to grow up in a pro­vince where they can expect something like Oka, which was literally the military responding to their communities. I don’t want my children to grow up in a province where they can expect anything remotely like what Everett Pat­rick experienced in downtown Prince George or what the Wet’suwet’en experienced with lethal oversight over the removal of their blockade.

We have to understand that over the last number of decades, there has been a significant increase in policing in this country, and part of that is a significant increase in militarization of police methods. Those are specific choices that are made. I understand that the province does not even have standards that apply to the ERT teams. The province issues standards in different ways, but they leave it up to the federal government to deal with that approach. When we’re enabling and inviting that kind of police response, we’d better have the highest measure of control.

From the First Nations Justice Council, we reject this approach entirely, in terms of militarization, and we be­lieve there should be a prohibition on that kind of ap­proach to policing in this province.

[10:50 a.m.]

With respect to systemic racism, when I think about what Heiltsuk Elder Maxwell Johnson and his granddaughter Torianne experienced a year ago in downtown Vancouver, I think there needs to be a zero-tolerance pol­icy in place for racism. We have to get to a place where if you’ve either…. The same is true with excessive use of force. If we’re dealing with people that seem to have a problem with excessive use of force or with racism, then those should be disqualifying for being a police officer in this province.

That is the utmost trust that we bestow upon police of­ficers. Every shred of their power to use force, every shred of their power to be police, does not belong to them. It belongs to the people of this province and this country, including Aboriginal peoples. If they breach that trust, there needs to be real consequences.

Finally — I’m not sure if this was mentioned by the leadership council — there is an enormous need for real data for us all. Much of this is obscure and hard to see. The data simply isn’t gathered. We want to be able to make sure that there are rigorous systems for us to know exactly what’s going on, on the ground.

I look forward to submitting the written submissions for you, and I look forward to any questions that may be coming. For now, those are my oral submissions. I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide them.

Hycepka Siem.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Doug. It was much appreciated.

Our next presenter will be Mary Teegee from the directors forum, representing the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies of B.C.

DELEGATED ABORIGINAL AGENCIES

M. Teegee: Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to present.

My name is Mary Teegee. My Hereditary Chief name is Maaxw Gibuu, “White Wolf.” I come from Takla First Nation; I am Gitxsan and Carrier. I’m also the executive director of child and family services at Carrier-Sekani Family Services, and I represent British Columbia on the National Advisory Committee on First Nations Child and Family Services Reform. I am also now the chair of the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies, and that is the group that I will be representing.

I just wanted to again thank you, Doug, for your good presentation and then for the great work that you’ve done on the justice council. I know that that’s something that we worked in collaboration on over the years with the agency forum, and I really want to urge the committee to definitely read that justice council strategy. That was quite a few years in the making. Thank you, Doug.

In reviewing all the documents, and in reviewing some of the previous presentations, I wanted to kind of fill in some of the gaps that I see, in our larger review. Just to give a little bit of background about myself. I have been a staunch advocate for the missing and murdered Indigenous women. We established the Highway of Tears initiative and the governance body, which we actually worked in collaboration with the RCMP on, over many years.

I also was the one that really helped with all the northern issues when it came to police relationships in the north, and I really advocated for change for many, many years. I also worked with national crime prevention in developing a gang prevention program called the walk tall program, which is still running and is very, very successful. We did that again in collaboration with the RCMP.

I bring up those examples of where we did collaborate with the RCMP, because those are good examples of best practices. They all tended to lean towards more of a community policing initiative, rather than what our people see as, just definitely, really strong police measures.

I understand that the act, of course, developed in the 1970s, so it’s long overdue for changes. Some of the key places that they’re looking at changing are around the funding. You want sustainability, governance. You want to look at the role of police in the context of social issues, the scope of systemic racism. How do you ensure the reformed Police Act does not contravene UNDRIP but actually supports it and actually breathes life into the declaration on the rights of Indigenous people? So it’s a good day, and definitely, this is a defining moment. This is a time where we can really come together.

[10:55 a.m.]

I know for sure that Alberta and Manitoba have actually engaged in activities such as this in the past and that B.C. actually implementing some of these recommended chan­ges will lead to us being the leaders in this field. I think we could be the leader for the rest of Canada — in fact, for the rest of the world. We have that one moment. I do believe that with everything right now, and the way the environment is, we would have the support of the public. Absolutely we would have the support of our people, because we need to change something.

I think, before I proceed again, it’s to remember that systems…. We understand that there need to be systems changing, but never forget that systems are just made up of a compilation of individuals. You change the individual — you change their mind; you change their heart — is the way they actually change the system. Sometimes, when we look at the enormity of the problem, we look at it too far away. We look at it as a system rather than: how do we change as individuals?

Being in my community, I know as deputy chief, when I was the deputy chief and working with various RCMP officers, I could tell you…. I still know the names of the ones that I absolutely respected and worked with in our community. They came to our potlaches. They laughed with us. They cried with us.

I also know the names of the ones that harmed my people. Now, that was dependent on an individual. Those individuals that I remember fondly and that made good change in my community are the ones that you need to look at as leaders into making this change. Talk to them. Listen to them. How is it that they’re accepted into the community? How is it that they’re trusted?

Then, also, of course, even the ones that have harmed our people. What is it that they did that was wrong? I can tell you that they weren’t engaged in the community. They didn’t listen. They weren’t empathetic. They had zero emotional intelligence.

There are certain things that you can get out of that. When you start looking at training, you think about that basic human empathy. How do you do that? How do you gauge that? How do you collect data about that? How do you ensure that people are doing that?

People are not going to change on their own because they want to. Well, sometimes they want to, but sometimes they just can’t. You actually need something within the act that’s going to monitor, evaluate and ensure that there is change within the individual, thereby changing the system. You can’t separate those two.

When I looked at the special committee…. And thank you for the work that you’re doing, being on the committee. Definitely, I know that there are two non-Caucasian people, and all the rest are, for the lack of a better term, white male. When I’m looking at your committee, I’m assuming — and I’m hoping, and if not, I’m recommending — that a process be developed to ensure that the Indigenous voice is there when there is the actual drafting or developing of the Police Act, that there ought to be some type of a special working group.

I’m saying this because, as part of the C-92 federal en­abling legislation that allows for Indigenous nations to as­sume their own child and family service jurisdiction, I was part of that legislative working group. As much as we wanted to make changes, as much as we wanted change, what ended up happening is C-92 was developed, and I would dare say that there was not as much influence as we wanted in that act.

I think at this time, with policing being of critical im­portance, that there has to be a good, strong process to include the Indigenous voice, especially when it comes to reforming the act. I would hate that the special committee ends up just as recommendations and nothing proceeds. We’re used to that, where there are many reports that are done, many recommendations in reports, and there is no follow up. So definitely a really clear, transparent process as to what the next steps are, and also, very clearly, how Indigenous people are going to be involved in that reform.

I think one of the key things that we had talked about — the rest of the agencies, directors — is the need to really reflect the youth component within policing. We know that many of our children that have been in care, former children in care, are children that have been living in poverty, all of the social ills that have affected our people…. Doug White had talked about the residential schools. I think one of the key pieces that really needs to be strengthened and needs to be in the act is looking at the training for trauma-informed practice but coming from an Indigenous lens.

When you have that training, when you have that knowledge passed on to your officers, passed on to every level of governance, you will understand why our people are more disproportionately represented in the justice system. I think that even at that very base, you assume that it’s done, but it isn’t always done.

[11:00 a.m.]

I think that needs to be either within the act or within regulations to ensure that there is trauma-informed training. Also, again, as I say, emotional intelligence, but not just that, Indigenous emotional intelligence.

When it comes to our youth, I know that we have heard a lot of stories from our youth ourselves, and I’ve seen myself, in downtown Prince George, how they’re treated. Definitely, there are some good RCMP officers, but there are some that aren’t — that use excessive force, even with our young people.

I know there are a lot of social issues that we have to deal with, when it comes to that. But within the opioid crisis, you have our young people dying. Again, there has to be a collaboration, there has to be some type of community policing. There absolutely has to. We can’t keep doing the same things.

I have seen it in Prince George. I’ve seen good practices at work. As I said, when we worked with the policing, with the national crime prevention for gang prevention, there were some good practices there. A lot of the people that I used to work with are no longer there, or the program that was running is no longer running anymore. I guess that is due to funding cuts, but that definitely needs to be a priority with us.

I think, when it comes to the act, as well, there need to be really clear ways that police and MCFD actually work together. I cannot say strongly enough that it is so traumatic when our children are being ripped away from their parents. When you have the police there in uniform, it exacerbates the situation. There has got to be a better way to do it. I think we need to really work together to make that better.

I do know that many times many of the agency directors have talked about how the police have said to other parents: “If you don’t do this….” They’re threatening our parents with calling MCFD to get their children removed. That’s not a good place to be.

I do believe that one of the key things — I didn’t see that in the terms of reference; it should have been first and foremost — was that there was…. Of course there’s a need to change the role of the police, the systemic racism and all these pieces, but the one key thing that should be in there is the development of trust and accountability. You need to develop trust with the RCMP, not just for non-Indigenous but for all the citizens across B.C. That should be a key component of the reformat. How are you…?

I definitely know, when we did research surveys, when we were developing our youth programming, when we were developing the Highway of Tears initiative, what we heard again and again was that our people did not trust the RCMP, so they wouldn’t go there. They wouldn’t go see them. Then you end up seeing them as the enemy. So as part of the reform, there needs to be a very strategic, clear plan as to how you develop that trust. I definitely know that within the justice strategy, there are very, very good recommendations within that strategy.

The other piece I think we need to understand is…. Doug referenced it, around the data. Looking at the statistics, there are stats, of course. But those statistics and the evaluation and the research that is done, which I know is overseen by the director…. Those research priorities and those evaluations need to include Indigenous people in them. It should be Indigenous-led, just like in anything within our communities. Any research that is done has got to benefit our people. We have to see ourselves in that — that we’re the ones that are helping and guiding and leading that research. That needs to be another key component with the new, improved act.

I understand that when we think about all of the complex issues, we need to know how to proceed in a good way. How do we know that we’re making change? When you have that evaluation and the research…. I do know that there have been many recommendation reports that were compiled. Those recommendations are compiled, again, including Indigenous voices and Indigenous ways of knowing, and saying: “Okay, these are the recommendations that we should prioritize.” Then actually have a report card to say: “Yes, these recommendations are implemented.”

[11:05 a.m.]

I looked at quite a few reports that you’ve already done. There are certain actions that happened, but there are a lot of those recommendations that are just gathering dust. We need to ensure that those good recommendations are implemented.

One that thing that…. I don’t know how this works. I did try to find out from Nicholas Simons, who was the previous Chair. When there is a complaint with an RCMP, it needs to be very clear that there needs to be statistics. This is the complaint with the RCMP person, da-da-da. There is really no follow-up. What happened in that? What are the repercussions?

That’s how you will gain trust in community — that if an RCMP does something wrong, you know that they are not just getting paid leave for two years, a year, while there’s an investigation, but actually, something is done. I don’t see that. That type of data really needs to be collected and disseminated so that there is trust fostered within the nations.

I do understand one thing. We are at the precipice of fundamental change right now in Canada, but especially in British Columbia. We have DRIPA, as you know. But we also have C-92. This is something that you need to consider and have strong discernment. Right now, we’re under a new era of C-92. For those that don’t know, that is the federal enabling legislation that is allowing nations to develop their own child and family laws and administer that. That brings into discussion the need for a way to, for lack of a better term, enforce their laws.

When you are considering the B.C. act, or any reformation, we have to consider what that can look like. I do know that within the statutes, in part 2 of the Police Act, the role of…. The minister can develop regulations. They can do many things. One of the things I found very interesting is that the minister can approve a specialized service provider: “In the case of specialized services to be provided other than by the government of British Columbia, a government, government agent, municipality, entity or a person specified by regulation referred to in section 4.02 (2), with which the minister has entered into or made a specialized service agreement….”

In looking at the whole act, I think that is an opportunity for us, right now, to consider that Indigenous governing bodies within the nations have the opportunity, when it comes to child and family, to have something to collaborate with the RCMP in a good way, to ensure that there is enforcement. Right now, as I said, it’s not always a good situation when the RCMP are coming and the children have to be removed. That’s where the RCMP are at.

When we look at the scope of C-92, Indigenous govern­ing bodies and nations will have their own laws. How are we going to enforce that? Right now, within the legislation, there really isn’t anything. I think, for this opportunity, we need to consider that. Again, I would strongly recommend that a working group be established to consider the child and family implications, the C-92 implications, on this Police Act.

I just wanted, again, to thank you for this opportunity. I see my time is up. We will be finalizing our draft submis­sion. I really believe that there needs to be a division of the existing act. There’s so much in the act. There ought to be various new statutes, possibly: one that talks about just policing, and then community policing — police oversight. There needs to be, I think, a differentiation. Then, within each of these new statutes, there has to be an Indigenous voice. There has to be. We can’t do it without that voice.

Again, as you know, article 5, I believe, of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples…. We have the right to strengthen and to maintain our own political, legal and social-cultural institutions. When we’re looking at your terms of reference, one of those pieces is about how we are going to do that. Again, that discussion needs to happen with Indigenous people, with our leaders, on how we’re going to do that.

I do believe one of the things that we know…. Within anything that we’re going to do when we’re changing, change is hard. What we have to do, in any change management process, is that you need to nurture a sense of urgency. That’s what we need to do here. There needs to be a sense of urgency, because it’s been too long. We’ve lost too many of our people.

[11:10 a.m.]

After that, then, one of the things you do in a change of management process is that you develop and you look at champions to lead that change — again, those champions coming from government but coming from communities, coming from Indigenous bodies and being diverse. That’s what we would need to do here. It’s to understand that we’re in this place where we’ve been talking too long. I have been talking about this for 25, 30 years, I’ll tell you, and I still don’t see…. I see sometimes change, and then it stops. Change. And then it stops. There needs to be that consistency, and there needs to be that commitment.

I absolutely believe that we need to figure out the new service delivery and governance models within the police reform act. Otherwise, we’re going to be here in the next ten years, the next 15 years, the next 20 years.

I appreciate this opportunity. Musi. I wish you all well.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. Thanks, both of you, for those presentations.

Members, questions?

A. Olsen: Thank you, Doug and Mary, for these great, wonderful presentations today — very informative.

I’m just wanting to…. I asked the questions of our for­mer presenters, representatives from the First Nations Leadership Council and leadership organizations, just around involvement of Indigenous leadership in the next steps of this.

I think these parliamentary committees lack the diver­sity of membership from outside or the influence of membership from the outside, based on the fact that these committees are made up of elected MLAs. However, the work that we do here isn’t necessarily the only work that’s done on this. I’ve heard now the recommendation very clearly, a couple of times in both your presentations, around Indigenous involvement.

Doug, you referenced the lack of Indigenous involvement in the development of our mandate, and Mary directly referenced the potential for a working group.

Recognizing that you may not have developed or structured this any further than those comments, I’m just wondering if maybe you could provide some of your ideas about how the recommendations that we develop here don’t necessarily have to take us directly to amendments in the act or to a new act, but they could involve a step in which the government structures a more complete engagement or a more inclusive engagement, with more voices around the table. Do you have any thoughts about what that could look like specifically?

D. White: Adam, thank you so much for your question. I think this is really an important one for the government to grapple with, not only for the Police Act review committee but for the mandate that already exists through the DRIPA act to review all existing provincial law to bring it into alignment with UNDRIP.

To do that work, you are going to be required to figure out what mechanisms and what bridges are required. How do we do this work in a way that properly has Indigenous Peoples as real partners in that work?

With respect to the Police Act, there are a lot of different ways to imagine who you would be engaged with and talking to and how you could structure input and participation and identifying possible approaches to core amendments to the Police Act. There’s work that’s happening, I understand. I think that people, like in MIRR and the leadership council, are looking at the action plan for the DRIPA act. There’s already, as I said, the existing mandate under DRIPA to do that work of reviewing all existing law.

There are going to be a few different ways that that happens: (1) is the existing body of law, (2) is amendments that are sort of the natural course of legislative life cycles, and then (3) is entirely new legislation.

[11:15 a.m.]

There might be slightly different approaches for each of them. But nonetheless, you’re going to have to work out how to…. You’ve got to engage with First Nations leadership to figure out how to properly engage on those matters.

M. Teegee: I absolutely agree. I also think that when we are talking about the engagement…. Again, you have to understand engagement and consultation very clearly. Mr. Lawyerman, Mr. White, will make sure that you understand that.

Over the years, when I’m thinking about this…. Thank you for the question. I’m going to tell you the truth. I can’t even recall how many times I have been part of a consultation or engagement process where I have brought my ideas forward. The independent office, IIO — I know that I made recommendations. I have presented there. When there are complaints, I’ve always, always been making sure that, in whatever capacity, I do have a say.

Having said that and looking at some of your reports already, which led to some changes — again, the development of the IIO, based on Josiah Wood. Based on that, you do have existing information already. I think what you need to do is actually come up with a really clear workplan strategy and identify Indigenous people that may lead this work and develop possibly even a secretariat, if you will.

Be really methodical as to how you’re going to proceed. Who do you need to speak to? What focus groups do you need? What existing information do you have? Do your lit review. You need somebody to actually do that administrative, the secretariat piece of work to ensure that it’s done. From there, then, you have a….

As I said, I have sat on the legislative working group for the federal enabling legislation C-92. In that work, I think it was really important to co-develop that legislation. We were creating new legislation.

This is a perfect opportunity, as Doug said, with UN­DRIP. Phase 1 was to get DRIPA introduced and passed in the House. We’re now in phase 2, where we are able to amend existing legislation to fall in line with UNDRIP or create. So we have that opportunity right now. I do believe that we have to capitalize on that. Whether or not we call it a secretariat or whatever, you have to have….

There is a big body of work. But you have to ensure a lot of it is Indigenous-led. That’s what I would recommend.

G. Begg: Thank you, both presenters, for a very balanced and, I think, global approach to the situation we find ourselves in on this committee.

I should tell you, as well, that I think that the members of the committee, regardless of our gender or our ethnic background or biases…. We are charged and we accept this responsibility that we have to approach this matter without bias and without favour. We’re essentially fact-finders. We listen, hopefully more than we speak. We certainly welcome your contribution today, and we welcome the contribution of all interest groups.

It’s important to us and it’s part of our responsibility to cast as big and as wide a net as we possibly can so we capture all of the elements of society and all of those people who are impacted by policing throughout the province.

I think it’s important that you clearly understand that that’s the role that we see ourselves in. We see ourselves as critical thinkers, as persons who have to get as much input as we possibly can. As both of you have said, this is perhaps an historic time in the province in relation to the future of policing here.

I hope it’s of some assurance to you to know that we take this very seriously, and we’re going to do our very best job to represent not only your interests but the interests of every party.

Now, Doug, I think I want to take advantage of your legal acumen for a moment here. The provincial policing agreement, the policing agreement between the RCMP and the province of British Columbia to provide provincial policing services, is obviously a contractual agreement.

[11:20 a.m.]

You referenced specifically the need to have the RCMP and, as well, the federal government cede some management and oversight activities to the provinces. I think that’s a very important point. I think it’s important that there be…. There obviously is bifurcation of police oversight in the province as it relates to municipal police agencies and the RCMP. You see that as a contractual agreement that should be the subject of negotiation in future contracts, I presume.

D. White: Yeah. I think the role of the provincial policing agreement between B.C. and Canada is to bring the RCMP, basically contracting with the RCMP, to be the provincial police force of British Columbia. That’s not necessarily the way things need to be at all, as we know from the entire history of Ontario and Quebec.

We’ve got the Ontario Provincial Police force. They do not use the RCMP as their provincial police force. Neither does the Sûreté du Québec. They have their own provincial police force. They do not rely upon the RCMP. I think the Newfoundland constabulary…. They do, I think, the larger city policing, but then they do contract with the RCMP, I believe, to be the provincial police force.

Even within Canada, there are other models of ensuring policing in the province that I think obviously need to be considered and understood. What are the options? What position does it put the province in to be able to achieve the kinds of goals and objectives that we’ve been talking about?

I do think that the contract that exists there is part of the broader relationship that has developed over the course of decades between B.C. and Canada with respect to policing. When we get to a point, which I believe we’re in, that requires real change, then I do believe there should be some kind of discussion between B.C., First Nations and Canada. We need to, effectively, build some kind of new cooperative federalism around policing that includes First Nations as a full partner.

Some First Nations people would totally reject that idea. “We don’t want anything to do with policing. We don’t want to own that policing.” But what I’m speaking to specifically is pathway 1, changes that are required under the B.C. First Nations justice strategy, which is to reform the existing system to make it less harmful and more appropriate with respect to governance and oversight. I think that that creates an imperative for us to be able to sit down with Canada and to be able to talk about where we’re going on policing.

As you have heard from other First Nations presenters over the past couple of months, there are some real limitations for First Nations with respect to policing in the province. The community tripartite agreements are an extremely limited model of getting some measure of community policing into some of the First Nations communities. As I said, there’s only one. The Stl’atl’imx police is the only police force that exists in the province — an Aboriginal police force.

I think another important point here for everyone to be well aware of is there are many regions of the province where policing doesn’t exist on a day-to-day basis. If you get up to northern B.C., Annita McPhee, one of the members of the justice council, shares the story about her own community, up in the Tahltan part of the world.

If there’s an Indigenous woman that needs help, if she’s in a domestic violence scenario or some other miserable reality like that…. If she’s going to call for help, it might be multiple days before anybody is able to respond, because there’s no local policing, depending on the weather, depending on the time of year, etc. They come in and do their policing work, and then they’re out on the next plane or whatever it is. I mean, that’s a real problem.

[11:25 a.m.]

This is why pathway 2 is so important. It’s an important objective for us, at the justice council, to ensure that every Indigenous woman has a sense of safety in her own home and, when she needs help, that she’s able to call for meaningful, effective help. I think the reality is that in the context of places like northern B.C., Tahltan or other remote parts of the province, it isn’t until that justice system or that public safety system emanates or manifests from the Indigenous Peoples themselves…. When that happens, then they will have that sense of safety. I mean, let’s not even talk about some of the stuff Mary talked about — the lack of trust that’s borne out of the real experience Indigenous Peoples have.

When an Indigenous woman is in a position of having to measure and weigh…. “Do I call for police help, knowing that that might invite the destruction of my family by bringing MCFD into the picture? My children might be taken away.” Or: “In calling for help for myself, do I subject my spouse to potential violence from police?” Those are all real considerations. That’s the reality.

I really think, given all of those matters — the lack of policing in some parts of the province, the fact….

Indigenous Peoples want a say over what happens in downtown Vancouver. They need to have a real say about the Vancouver police board — the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh. There are Snuneymuxw people that live in downtown Vancouver and whatnot. We need a say, too, there.

It’s a multifaceted thing that I think requires a broad discussion, which includes Canada, in the longer term, to be able to create some kind of a cooperative, coordinated approach to policing in the province.

M. Teegee: I think the…. Sorry.

G. Begg: Go ahead, Mary.

M. Teegee: I just wanted to add on to that.

Doug, all your points, absolutely.

I think, over the years, when you look at lessons learn­ed…. If you look at the delegated model, if you will, for child and family…. The federal government had provided the provinces with the authority to assume child and family service jurisdiction for Indigenous People. We’re just now coming out of that, but the damage has been done.

If you look at policing from that respect, I think…. When we talk about the system changes, all the things that we need…. What we did, way back in the day, once…. The provinces assumed jurisdiction for child and family, and then the delegated agencies took it over. What we ended up doing….

Understanding we had very limited room to make an impact, we developed our own standards. So we have the Aboriginal operational and practice standards and indicators. We’re held to a higher account than, say, social workers from MCFD. Our polices…. Everything is different. The way that we practise is different to reflect Indigenous ways of being.

Now, one thing that I always say is that good practice makes good standards, which, in turn, make good policies, which then develop good laws. You already have good examples of good practice or best practices throughout pockets of B.C. and, in fact, pockets throughout Canada on how community policing should look.

I have explained some of the examples where we had national crime prevention. In fact, the national crime prevention funding…. They’ve funded pilot projects all over Canada and all over B.C. Those were supposed to roll into…. You were going to continue funding to provide that. Well, funding only lasted, in many of those cases, three to five years. You actually have data to show what good practice, what good community policing looks like.

When you look at the federal and the provincial relationship to policing, I think the…. Again, considering, in this new era of jurisdiction and considering that we have DRIPA, there is a really good opportunity…. I think our Indigenous leaders, our people, the province of B.C. and the federal government need to come to the table and say: “What is going to be the best service delivery and governance model that’s going to meet the Indigenous Peoples’ needs?”

At the end of the day, when you look at incarceration rates, it’s ridiculous when it comes to Indigenous Peoples. So something systemic like that could be changed by reforming the act.

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

R. Singh: Thank you so much for your presentations. You make some very, very valid points.

My question is for Mary. You mentioned…. In the last years, there have been some changes. Some good things have happened, and then they stopped. I would really like to know…. There is sometimes…. Work starts, and then it stops. It stalls. That creates the gap in between the kind of change that we are all looking for. What do you think are the reasons?

[11:30 a.m.]

M. Teegee: I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know. I am just thinking, like, even something simple…. I’ll just give you an example. When we used to have culture camps, the RCMP used to come. We would invite them. And then they could no longer come. They were no longer allowed to come to cultural camps, which is ridiculous — our youth cultural camps.

Then we actually had a program here, and it was led by an amazing woman, Carmen Dimenic. That was where my social workers, or any social workers working with youth actually…. She was a contact. They would assist us with working with those social…. That department no longer exists.

That’s why I’m saying that — the importance of community policing and looking at prioritizing that as funding. A lot of the issues we’re dealing with may not necessarily need that much brutish enforcement. That’s why I was talking about that trauma-informed lens. That mental health piece — you need to be really clear about that. What is community policing? What is it when they need help, mental health supports?

Again, when you look at the police reform act, it has to be situated within, say, the Mental Health Act. They should be kind of collaborative. But I do believe that there has to be priority for prevention, and I don’t think that’s always the priority. It’s about: “Okay, we’re going to intervene right now. This is how we’ve always done it. It’s easy. This is what the act allows us to do.” So you need to change the act so that it’s more prevention-focused, more human, and I think that’s why all of these good programs that I talk about, or these good initiatives, are no longer running.

Again, just to reiterate, within the national crime pre­vention funding, there are a lot of good best practices. In fact, that was what that money was there for — to develop best practices in collaboration with policing. But nothing has ever been done with it.

R. Singh: Uh-huh. Really good to hear from you. We have heard from other participants as well, especially with the community policing and putting the resources. We have had really good examples, like Car 86, Car 87, but more in urban areas. We know that the barriers, the gaps, within the rural communities are even larger. The issues that they are facing are much deeper than what we see in the urban setting. Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

D. White: Can I jump in, to add some thoughts?

D. Routley (Chair): Go ahead.

D. White: This is an important question for everyone to have kind of background, situational awareness about. This is a constant question we ask ourselves at the justice council. When we’ve known that there are problems for so long and there have been so many different kinds of recommendations and inquiries, why have we not made real progress? Even worse than that, why are we going in the wrong direction?

With respect to the innovation of Gladue, for example, in the mid-90s when the Criminal Code was amended to give direction to judges to sentence Indigenous Peoples differently, the problem that they were addressing was that 10 percent of the prison populations were Aboriginal, which was a gross overrepresentation of our people in jails. Now we have to ask ourselves what is going on. Why are we now over 30 percent populated by Aboriginal Peoples?

One of the things about the failure of progress is…. Sometimes it’s the tools that are used to mandate the change. First of all, there’s the complexity of what we call the justice system. The criminal justice system is a vast, complex system made up of many different constituent elements that are all operating under different laws, policy, regulation, patterns of behaviour. We drafted and crafted the B.C. First Nations justice strategy with all of that in mind.

We looked at things like, okay: why when Gladue was put forward 20 years ago was it effectively not implemented in a clear, coherent way across the country, and at the same time we made such important progress in youth justice? One of the key differences is that with respect to youth justice, the government used legislative tools to mandate and shape and give very clear direction to how the different actors in the criminal justice system must behave now. The same isn’t true about Gladue.

Now, the tool that you have to work with is the justice strategy that was crafted to answer the problem that you’ve raised and that Mary has talked about. Also, you have the legislative tool. That is the most powerful tool that you can wield as a Legislature to shape the way things happen on the ground, to shape the way the system functions.

[11:35 a.m.]

Those two things combined, I think, put you in a very powerful position to be able to address the change that’s required now.

R. Singh: Absolutely. I think these are very, very im­portant words — the work that we are doing; the ability to bring in the change that I think is long overdue, and looking at it from that lens; and also the different layers that you talk about, within the system, and taking it off layer by layer, the intersectionality perspective of it. Thank you so much. I really, really appreciate your comments.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you, both, for your presentations this morning. Going toward the end with the questions, you often find that your questions slowly get answered throughout everyone else’s comments.

I did want to mention a couple of things, Mary. I appreciate you mentioning that there are some successful models of partnerships — you know, the Walk Tall program. I think we need to embrace those and really promote that. There are some good things that are there.

You had mentioned…. I hadn’t heard this yet from any other presenter, and maybe I’m alone on this, but it kind of tweaked a thought. We’re looking at reforming the Police Act as one act, and you had mentioned that maybe we don’t need one act. Maybe we need a police oversight act, a community policing act, an Indigenous policing act. It really made me start thinking, as we move forward in these deliberations, to have a little bit different lens. Maybe this isn’t just one thing. I appreciate your bringing that point up as well.

Just as a comment…. Again, most of my questions were answered already. Many of the things that we’ve heard from both you and Doug have been very succinctly bro­ught up before: around statistics and gathering that statistical data so that we can make informed change; the enforcement of First Nations bylaws — that community policing aspect keeps coming up over and over again; as well as oversight and training. Those are very important and, certainly, things that we will, again, have that lens on as we move forward.

Just a comment and, again, the opportunity to thank you both.

M. Teegee: Thank you. I just wanted to make one comment.

I was just thinking about some of the good experiences that I’ve had in working with the RCMP. Definitely, when we had the Highway of Tears initiative, as you know, we had the recommendations report. Then, of course, later we had the Wally Oppal report. Now we have the “Calls for Justice”, all of the recommendations from that. They all include policing; it’s absolutely very clear. Again, I would strongly recommend — and I’m sure you have looked — looking at those recommendations.

One of the things that we did do. When we had the governance body, we had the RCMP there. We had all the stakeholders — the provincial ministry, heads of ministries, ADMs. The federal government was there, and stakeholders from the community, and the RCMP — not just at a low level. We had sometimes the head guy there, from time to time. The reason we did that is because we wanted to ensure, with these recommendations, that there was actual movement on them, which there was.

I definitely saw a change, even on the streets, in how the RCMP were being…. They were different. We were actually having conversations. There was something that was happening. I myself and my staff would know right away: “Okay, this is how this particular officer was dealing with that person. They were horrible. This was horrible. They shouldn’t have been doing that.” I would get these, and I would bring them back to that table, and they were actual action items.

The next time they would report out…. It was Supt. Rod Harris at the time. He would say: “Okay, this is what we did.” Sometimes we would work together to actually do the cultural training. So there’s good…. We worked with E-PANA. I mean, come on, E-PANA. They were one of the…. It was a long training and a long teaching curve with the members of E-PANA, but we got to a place where we all on the same page. But of course, there was no longer funding for that.

I think it’s really important that, again, we revisit those tables where you can make decisions. It has led me to think that definitely, what happens in Vancouver or in Kelowna is different than, say, what happens in Prince George or in Tahltan territory or in Prince Rupert, or on the Island or in the north Island. The responses and the changes to the reform have to allow for those regional disparities and have to allow for regional processes to occur naturally.

[11:40 a.m.]

Then you will get a more fulsome policing and community policing service, because everything is done a little bit differently. I think, here in the north, and especially those pockets of the province where it’s hard to recruit any type of professionals or paraprofessionals, one of the things we know that works is building resident capacity.

What does that look like where there are no policing services? What can you do? Where can you expend those dollars and resources to train community people to do the very basics? There are new service delivery models that we could look at.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Doug.

Thank you, Mary.

As MLA Davies mentioned, most of my questions are answered. That’s why I had my hand lowered, but I couldn’t resist to say how grateful I am for the presentation. Very enlightening and very powerful. Much-needed conversation. I’m proud to be part of this committee so that we can move towards meaningful dialogue, towards reconciliation.

I wanted to assure you, Mary, that I really appreciated your comment about bringing that Indigenous lens and looking at the screen.

Members of this committee…. I wanted to share that this is totally…. We work in a very non-partisan way, and some of us bring our own experiences and our work being an ally of our Indigenous communities. I’m happy to share — you’re probably already aware — that MLA Olsen brings that very valuable Indigenous lens to us. I’m always keen to hear from him whenever he speaks in the House from time to time. It’s really valuable. Hopefully, you can find some assurance in that.

We have heard many similar things: the deep-rooted cause of mistrust. Now there is an initiative bringing in a liaison person between the RCMP and Indigenous communities. We heard in the past that with those positions, usually there is high turnover. I’ve been thinking, along with other members too: what if that person was from Indigenous communities? We will certainly be discussing that, to perhaps close those gaps and to build bridges or maybe build that trust a bit.

What are your thoughts about those positions, and have you found some meaning in them? Were there any positive stories that came out from those positions?

M. Teegee: Thanks for that. I just wanted to reiterate, when I talk about the representation on this committee, what I was bringing up was highlighting that we need to ensure that the lived experience of Indigenous people is reflected moving forward. Whether or not that’s a legislative working group or whatever working group, Indigenous people have to be there. That was my point.

I just wanted to say that…. Thank you for your question. I definitely know that some of the liaisons that we worked with….

I will tell you why the turnover rate is quite high, which, I suppose, is because of the culture within the RCMP. You have this lack of trust with communities right now, and then you put that person, who is Indigenous themselves, in an RCMP uniform or whatever, and they know they are RCMP. You put them in community, and in some cases, they’re not going to be treated that well because the relationship has already been damaged for decades and decades and decades.

So of course it’s going to be a lot of stress. Plus, their Indigenous ways of knowing…. They know how to treat people, and that’s not always reflected, unfortunately, by the RCMP officers. That’s just being very blunt. Obviously, there’s going to be that.

There’s also a sense of tokenism. You have one person, one Aboriginal officer. I know the one I worked with…. Seriously, there was only him for this whole area of Prince George, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof. It was like one person. You put your money where your mouth is, and then you actually hire and do the proper training for more of those positions — if that’s the liaison position.

I know back in the day — God, I’m going to age myself — probably about 25, 30 years ago, that they used to have this program.

Doug, you might remember it, way back in the day when they had an auxiliary police officer.

They would do training within the community. So some of the young community members would be trained. They would ride along with the RCMP.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have not seen that in a long time, but I definitely know…. It was more like a recruitment tactic. But at least there, you know, there was…. You had community members. And when the RCMP officers were in community were very accepted by the community by the good work that the RCMP officers did, by, like I said, laughing and crying and celebrating with the communities, the outcome was very different — very, very different.

There are different…. I think, looking through the past and talking to the communities, what is it that they want? What positions should be filled? It can’t just be a token gesture.

H. Sandhu: I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your honesty and the work that you do.

We take this work very seriously and are proud to be part of it. I know the Chair will reiterate that. Hopefully, you will be happy to assist us, moving forward, when we need to consult with you again. Thank you so much.

D. White: For my part, I want to answer that particular topic, because I think it’s an important one that you’ve raised. What comes to mind for me is the most recent tragedy we’ve experienced here in B.C. with the RCMP interacting with our people. That is, yet again, with the Tla-o-qui-aht people on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

I haven’t talked with the Tla-o-qui-aht about this issue, this particular idea specifically, but it does, for me…. I think it’s clear that there could possibly have been a different outcome if there was someone in the community that was a special constable of some kind, as is set out in the Police Act.

It’s easy to imagine…. You know, you get a couple of RCMP officers. Maybe they are from Winnipeg. Maybe they are from…. I don’t know where — Quebec, somewhere, or Ontario. Maybe they’re not from an ocean community. They get a call, and they’ve got to get in a boat on a stormy winter night and cross the ocean to go to an Aboriginal community that they maybe don’t know.

I don’t know what the circumstances were. I’m not talking about that specific circumstance. But it’s easy to imagine the level of adrenaline that someone would experience in having to do their job if they’re not familiar with the ocean, if they’re not familiar with the community. And then, on the other hand, you have Indigenous people who have, as has already been discussed, a lot of distrust and fear about policing. You put those two things together, and it’s a recipe for disaster.

I wondered, myself, if there was an in-community re­source that could have met the police at the dock and gone with the police to the home, and that person was someone who knew that family, knew that household, knew those people, knew about policing, knew about…. I think that if that was in place, it’s possible there might have been a different outcome. But when we leave it to scenarios like the one that played out, then I think it’s an unnecessary level of risk that’s created.

Anyways, I think it’s something that both Canada and B.C. need to think about: figuring out, particularly in re­mote communities, the establishment of some kind of Indigenous-based policing that can be of assistance for when RCMP from different parts of the country are coming in to do work.

That’s something that comes to mind for me. It’s not a fully developed idea or thought, at all. But it’s certainly something that I’ve thought about to some extent.

H. Sandhu: Thank you, Doug. It’s absolutely a great idea. If you do have some thoughts, please feel free to send us an email.

I’m thinking, listening to you…. In those situations, the situation is already tense. Even if the RCMP and Indigenous communities were to have the usual dialogue, given the historic creation of the RCMP or police, or the systemic, deep-rooted discrimination, the situation is already not that smooth. When there is that incident, or a tense situation, and there comes the unfamiliar police force, and that community is already being frightened, it doesn’t help.

You’re right. If there was that person who could kind of meet — you know, be that person — then the outcome would certainly have been different. Thank you again.

M. Teegee: I just wanted to add to that. In my own language, we have what they call the [Dakelh was spoken], and they’re the ones that watched the community or took care of the community in all respects. So definitely, there are those traditional roles in all our nations where there would be, for lack of a better term, policing.

Also, just to highlight to you guys that the federal government, about five years ago or so, embarked on the community safety planning. Many nations across Canada…. I definitely know that in Carrier-Sekani Family Services, we have most of our nations that have community safety planning.

[11:50 a.m.]

This was an initiative that was started by the federal government with the RCMP, and it was a rollout for each community to develop their own community safety plan. And there is a component there around what they wished for policing services and what that would look like.

Some of those positions that Doug was talking about that I referenced, like building resident capacity in community, are referenced in those community safety plans. Those are already existing. I think when you look, moving forward…. There was a question earlier about how about engagement and consultation — how would you get that? Don’t forget the existing information that’s already there and existing successful practices for resources for nations themselves to develop their own community safety plans.

A. Olsen: The conversation we’ve had and the responses to these questions are a tremendous example, I think, of why and how useful…. Maybe a next step in this process would be to include these ideas that are coming from our community members that have got so much experience in these areas.

Just wanting to point to two aspects of the presentations and the questions that have been asked. One from Mary and one from Doug, I think, refers to the point around us­ing special constables and understanding how, perhaps, we could use that aspect of the act to train and recruit people within the community.

As someone who grew up in an Indigenous community, I just know so much better the community politics, the community relationships between different families, the dynamics that are going on in these communities. Understaffed RCMP or municipal or other forces just simply don’t understand those nuances that could turn a situation from being a manageable situation to one that is fatal, deadly.

I think it’s really, really important that we don’t underestimate the importance of the advice that Doug gave us with respect to the community presence and the community understanding and knowledge.

Then to the point that Mary made in her presentation, which I also would like to elevate just before we shut down here for the day. That was around the evaluation process. So often we set these processes up to collect testimony, collect advice and then create recommendations.

I really want to highlight the point that was made that to think that the work is done once the recommendations have been submitted…. I think there’s an opportunity for us to look at how we can evaluate the work of the government against the work of this committee and the recommendations that we made, and perhaps that could be highlighted in the work that we put forward to the minister.

Thank you for your presentations and for your wisdom here today for this committee.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you, everyone.

I don’t see any more hands at this point. That leads me to the conclusion of the meeting and my opportunity to give my heartfelt thanks to all the presenters we’ve heard from today.

To the people who are on our screen now: thank you for the help you’ve given to our committee. In the deliberations that we will entertain in the near future, all of these presentations are very important.

With that, I’d echo MLA Sandhu’s invitation to contribute anything, any opinions or recommendations, as you’ve suggested you will. The committee hopes that you would be available should we need to reach out to you for further clarification or information. I give my thanks in advance for that, and I give my thanks, on behalf of the committee today, for your presentations.

[11:55 a.m.]

All right, committee members. We do not have time left for deliberations today. I think it was a very, very informative meeting, and I really appreciate the questions everybody asked. The way the meetings flow has been pretty easy to deal with. I appreciate everybody’s cooperation.

With that, I’d ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting.

R. Glumac: A question.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes, Rick.

R. Glumac: I notice in my calendar that there’s another meeting. What is that about?

D. Routley (Chair): That’s with the Whip’s office.

R. Glumac: Oh, it’s with the Whip’s office. Okay. Do we know what it’s about?

D. Routley (Chair): Yeah, we do.

A. Olsen: You might just have to wait, Rick, for Dan and I to leave, and then you guys can ask.

D. Routley (Chair): Yeah. We’ll have a caucus meeting.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Just send the link over to us. I’d love to eavesdrop.

D. Routley (Chair): This little bit of Hansard will be proof positive that we all get along well across the group here.

There’s a motion to adjourn from MLA Davies, secon­ded by MLA Singh.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:56 a.m.