The Trudeau government is eyeing the pre-writ period for the release of its national action plan for tackling the recommendations that were outlined by the national inquiry responsible for investigating the systemic violence faced by Indigenous women and girls, says Indigenous Services Minister Seamus O’Regan.

In a sit-down interview with The Hill Times in his ministerial office on June 11, Mr. O’Regan (St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, N.L.) said the government is working on “pretty fast” timeline, given that it has a limited runway before campaign fever sets in.

Between anxiously awaiting the passage of Bill C-92—legislation still in the Senate’s hands that seeks to reduce the number of Indigenous children separated from their families by child welfare services—and figuring out which recommendations set out in the national inquiry on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ (MMIWG) final report to prioritize, Mr. O’Regan has a hefty agenda to shepherd through before Parliament is dissolved and the next election is called.

Indigenous stakeholders say the bill is imperfect, that without statutory funding, it creates a degree of uncertainty for First Nations organizations. But for Mr. O’Regan, who inherited the portfolio from Jane Philpott (Markham-Stoufville, Ont.), the ex-Liberal minister turned Independent MP, the bill is a “landmark” commitment that ensures Indigenous communities can create their “own child and welfare service systems.”

Under the legislation, if a First Nations community is unable to reach a deal with the provinces after a year of negotiations, its laws take precedence. “These communities, with extended families and friends, are able to look after one another, and we just need to improve their capacity to do that,” Mr. O’Regan said.  

Mr. O’Regan said that while the government still has much work to do, the pace of its progress is in step with its commitment to co-developing solutions with Indigenous communities.

The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

The government has pledged to create a national action plan to implement some of the recommendations in the report, but it’s unclear which ones the plan will focus on. Can you provide some more specifics on which ones the government will focus on initially?

“The good news is—if I can call it that—is that we’re making significant headway in a lot of the root-cause issues, and I would put in that first and foremost, child and family services. There’s been so much devastation with the Sixties Scoop, residential schools, which have affected generations and continue to affect generations.

“Child and family services [Bill C-92] is a landmark piece of legislation that we developed, that we co-developed with Indigenous organizations, and in effect, this is about local solutions to local problems. We are saying to Indigenous communities, ‘You develop your own child and welfare service systems, which is pretty extraordinary.’ You couple that with adequate funding. We’ve doubled child and family services that budget.

“The problem is 80 per cent of that is still going towards protective services, which is just lingo for taking babies away from mothers, and the legal and public security apparatus that goes along with that. And that’s money that we can be using towards preventative care, prenatal care.

When Canadians expect to see the national action plan? Will be it before the election and part of your party’s platform?

“The timeline is pretty fast. We’re fully aware of the fact that this is a government with a few months left, and we’re committed to making sure that action plan happens.

“I don’t know if it would be part of the platform. I think this kind of stays on its own. I’m going to take the lead from [Crown-Indigenous Relations] Minister [Carolyn] Bennett on this. I think the action plan is in direct response to the commission. But in terms of what our platform will entail on reconciliation, I think you can expect a continuation of where we’re going—real partnership on legislation and implementation of programming.

“We have increased the budget by $21.3-billion towards reconciliation, so that’s new programs, new services, new infrastructure, health care, social services. It’s the biggest in our country’s history.

“What I think is really important—when I tout those numbers—is how we’re spending and implementing these new resources. It’s at the pace of our Indigenous partners, and it’s working with them to ensure we’re not doing top-down solutions. The government is notorious for them.”

Between the 94 recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the MMWIG inquiry, there are hundreds of recommendations still awaiting action. Implementing the TRC’s calls was in the Liberal Party’s 2015 platform, what’s helped up progress to date? Why should Canadians trust that your government will act on the inquiry’s recommendations?

“It’s not held up. I don’t like that phrase. [We’re] working substantively and truthfully with our partners on the ground. And that will take a little more time, but that time is worth it. Because when you work with people, you’ll come up with solutions that are longer lasting, that are more sustainable, that are more substantive. I’ve seen that myself, and that’s the road we’re going to continue to take. So it does mean that things are ‘held up,’ but not from my point of view. I’m not going through a checklist here.” 

And do you see any recommendations from the inquiry that are particularly important to act on right now?

“Like I said, I think we’re heading down the right path when it comes to child and family services and the importance of education. We will continue working with local groups and women’s shelters. But this is a whole of government approach, as they say. Every single cabinet minister has, in his or her mandate letter, a commitment to reconciliation. We’re all going to be working together on a national action plan. Public security is going to weigh heavily; there’s also going to be matters for justice. There are other elements here outside of my purview that we’re going to be working on.”

The prime minister said the MMIWG report is meant to put an end to a national tragedy, but data obtained by the CBC from Families of Sisters in Spirit and the Sovereign Bodies Institute shows that about three Indigenous women and girls died each month between 2016 and 2019, which is about the same as pre-inquiry levels. What can the government do to actually reduce the levels?

“Keep working at it. Look, we’ve got a long way to go. I don’t expect any overnight solutions. I think most Canadians don’t either. There are some things we can act relatively quickly on. It can be by getting those advisories lifted. We’re on target to get those lifted by 2021.”

Are you planning to take a region-specific approach?

“We deal nation to nation, we deal with communities. We try to get as local as we possibly can. You have some communities—bands, nations—who deal with aggregates because they’re smaller, and if they get together with a group in the region and they have very common interests and common solutions, then we deal with aggregate groups. But my rule is the more local we can get, the better.”

The TMX pipeline discussion seems to be pitting “economic reconciliation” against “political reconciliation.” The government and some Indigenous communities think that the economic benefits will outweigh other concerns. How do you balance these two competing notions?

“This is a whole lot more complicated than some people realize. It is so complicated, in that there is division not only within a nation or a group, there are divisions with communities about this. People are having these conversations around the kitchen table. There are divisions amongst families in Indigenous communities about this tension between the economy, between wanting substantive good jobs, self-sufficiency, and concerns about the environment. We have to be very respectful of that.

“Sometimes it takes a little more time. But it does mean that once all parties, if and when they’re able to come to an agreement, that it is a real yes, and consensus has been reached.”

The courts ruled that there was inadequate consultation with Indigenous peoples and ordered the government to redo it. What has the government done differently to ensure meaningful consultation?

“It has to be acknowledged by all parties that it was a substantive consultation.

“This isn’t a marginal thing. The Supreme Court told us you need to do this in a real and substantive way, and that’s the real world. I live in the real world. I’m a pragmatic Newfoundlander. I deal with the world as it is—the world as it is from the Supreme Court means we have to do certain things in order for economic development to go ahead, then that’s what we have to do.”

In 2017, your predecessor committed to building a health care facility in the Grassy Narrows area for people dealing with mercury-related problems. You recently said that the federal government offer is “not far off.” What did you mean by that?

“That commitment was made by my predecessor in November 2017. I started in January 2019, and began a relationship with the chief. We realized we needed to do some work. Not a whole heck of a lot had been done, so we started substantive developments then. These are how discussions go. This is a case where the chief wants assurances that the commitments we’ve made to him are long-standing and binding.

“The onus is on me, and it has been on me, in telling him that a contribution agreement, which is something our department uses all the time … is binding, is long term. It commits the Government of Canada in a real way, in this case to new health care facilities to help them deal with symptoms of mercury poisoning. You’re catching me in mid-discussion.

“He’s reviewing it right now. There was an idea that a trust would be better. Trusts are very difficult, in that it’s just not something that’s within my purview at the moment, but contribution agreements are. I can get shovels on the ground now.”

Some groups have called for more Indigenous involvement in procurement. Less than one per cent of procurement dollars go to Indigenous businesses. These groups are arguing for five per cent by 2024. Do you support this goal and what do you think your department can do to help achieve it?

“Economic development is a huge passion of mine. Early in my career, I spent five years at two negotiating tables on comprehensive land claims agreements and economic agreements in Labrador— that’s where I grew up.

“Procurement is a great mechanism for us to build larger Indigenous businesses, and we’re seeing this crop up, particularly out West. I’d like to see it more in Ontario, Quebec, and out east as well. I was involved with an impact benefit agreement, which someone said was the gold standard, and that was 20 years ago in Voisey’s Bay, in Labrador, and that has been hugely successful in making sure that there are local benefits, and they continue to improve upon it. That’s kind of my marker.”

According to the 2019 Indigenous Economic Progress Report, Indigenous peoples have made enormous progress in the number attending and completing college degrees and trade programs. But there’s also a gap in completion rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples at the university level. Why do you think this gap exists, and what specific steps can the government take to close it?

“We are building a parity with provincial levels of funding, plus per student $1,500 a year for culturally appropriate programs … to make sure that they have the time to learn about their language, their cultures, their traditions.

“In fact, one of the principles of C-92 is an acknowledgement by all parties that what’s essential to the health of a child is their tradition, their culture, their language, that those are essential elements to the health of an Indigenous child. We’re making significant headway on post-secondary education as well.

“All I know is we’re determined to close those gaps, and we’ve made substantive work on that in the past. It means it’s going to take some time. We have to increase the number of Indigenous students who get to that point where they want to pursue post-secondary education.”

But what accounts for the gap?

“They’ve been institutionally underfunded, so therefore opportunities for post-secondary education have been more limited.”