On Monday, June 2 and Tuesday, June 3, 2003 in Saskatoon the Commission on First Nations and Métis Peoples and Justice Reform held a roundtable on Implementation. In attendance were the Commissioners and staff plus invited guests from a wide range of service and government organizations and the Commission’s Elder. An open discussion was held throughout the day.

On the first evening, Winston McLean explained what the Commission had accomplished up to that point and its work plan for the rest of its existence. By the end of June, the Commission will have 90% of its dialogues completed and will begin work on report development.

The next day there was a presentation by Wendy Whitecloud, who was a member of the Manitoba Implementation Commission, on implementation. Betty Ann Pottruff, a member of the Committee who implemented the Indian and Metis Justice Review Committee, also did a presentation on implementation and her experiences.

After that, individual tables examined four implementation models:

1. the educator,
2. the broker,
3. the advocate and
4. the watchdog.

Wendy Whitecloud is Dakota, from the Sioux Valley nation. Although she is a veteran of the farm, she is urbanized now. She went to teacher’s college (Normal School) after which she worked as a guidance counsellor. As a result of the Aboriginal deaths of J.J. Harper in Winnipeg and Helen Betty Osborne in The Pas, Manitoba, a reform Commission was appointed. When the Commission was finished, there was a change in government and the report was shelved – government copies of the report did not get opened for another ten years until the Implementation Commission was appointed. The NDP was re-elected in 1999, partially because it promised to implement that Commission’s recommendations. The Implementation Commission asked for and received a six month extension beyond the original one year time limit. The Commission was to set priorities for policy initiatives and could not consider a separate justice system. All recommendations had to be practical, cost efficient, attainable and under the jurisdiction of the provincial government as the federal government refused to be involved.

First, Paul Chartrand, the other Commissioner, and Wendy Whitecloud met with government departments to find out what had been implemented already. The recommendation for better records of statistics had been implemented but it only showed that the rate of incarceration had gone up from 65% to 75-80% of the prison population as Aboriginal. The rates for youth were even higher and 90% of women in jail were Aboriginal. The same rise in incarceration rates for Aboriginal people is happening in Saskatchewan and will lead to serious problems.

The second step was prioritisation of recommendations. The list of priorities was as follows: 1) police organization; 2) child welfare and the transfer of jurisdictions to Aboriginal organizations; 3) legislating the care of children under Aboriginal control; 4) northern flood agreement; 5) families and children; 6) probation. Discretion and diversion from the system were the main areas of concern.

The Commission tried to encourage a closer working relationship between Social Services and Corrections. Employment equity within the justice system was also a concern. While many communities suffered from "NIMBY" syndrome (not in my back yard), those communities also wanted to see an emphasis on community policing.

Communities wanted a different approach to domestic violence as zero tolerance meant more Aboriginal people were charged. Mediation and community justice initiatives had to overcome training needs as the government expected volunteers to carry out those initiatives.

Although the Commission recommended a permanent Implementation Commission to drive the government forward, this recommendation was mostly ignored. The government created an inter-departmental group with deputy ministers and ministers to deal with children’s issues, which works well with all the Minister’s at the table. There was no similar table for Aboriginal issues.

So far the NDP government in Manitoba has a good track record with northern Manitoba. It just has not done well with urban Aboriginal people and that is one reason why there are gangs.

Parenting classes are essential as many people are learning parenting as they go along. Cultural activities need to be outside of the jail system.

So far, the Manitoba government has not implemented many of the recommendations, although Wendy Whitecloud was not sure on this matter.

Betty Ann Pottruff Presentation

As a member of the Indian and Metis Justice Review Committee, Betty Ann Pottruff knows what is needed for implementation. Of the ninety recommendations, only four were not implemented.

The progress of the Committee was confined by its mandate – community driven initiatives, focussing on the doable and with existing community demand, resources and commitment to move forward. Relationships and commitment that use a shared dialogue are essential to implementation. Even though there may be different perspectives, trust and respect with principled debates create progress. The debates will result in something on which everyone can agree.

This committee relied heavily on multi/tripartite relationships. These take time because you must develop a trust relationship first and then move forward. They developed a steering committee with the FSIN, MNS and government. This was a shared power process as the provincial and federal governments funded it but everyone was equal at the table. The government came to the table with mandates and policy frameworks. There was no set number ideas. It was a wide open discussion.

To move toward the goal of implementation, there were three steps: 1) priorities (funding); 2) building funds required for a shift to the new process; 3) five year mandate for stability.

There were three key themes: 1) crime prevention and reduction; 2) building bridges; 3) employment equity and "race" relations.

To keep momentum going on a project of this proportion, everyone should be able to participate in the decision making and strong leadership. Then, partnerships build the process along with sustained commitment and funding.

Betty Ann Pottruff commented that there has not been good communication outside of the negotiation forums. The government should offer more public education on the successes and failures of the process. There is a risk that momentum and funding get side tracked. For example, the Committee lost $500,000 to the Leo LaChance inquiry.

It is also difficult to sustain relationships between government partners because of different funding cycles and changing mandates. If the right people are not at the table, then the implementation is more difficult.

There are certain steps to implementation such as structural supports, training and emotional supports. The process must be as simple as possible. The steps to creating the vision must be practical. The public has to understand the recommended changes in order to support the process.

Underneath all of this is the fact that spending decisions are made under the direction of cabinet. For an effective multi-party process, each party should share chairing the meetings. When developing criteria and the program, who gets status and should anyone have status?

1. What are Your Concerns about the Process?

• that the report will gather dust on a shelf
• ability to stay optimistic
• terms of reference from the government may be too restraining
• up coming provincial election
• there should be an economic analysis of costs now and in the future
• too many recommendations
• political and public will
• ability to build a trust relationship moving beyond police violence
• money into prevention
• having something to implement
• presence of strong voices to bring the government to task
• power constrained in the larger community context
• identifying a path to harmonious relationships
• engaging community
• abolishing the idea of war on crime
• loss of control locally
• implementation lost
• paternalism – not fitting government policy so not funding
• respect for community values
• jurisdiction, resources, length of funding
• partnerships
• political will and climate unknown
• intervention
• will there be buy-in at the senior level?
• power imbalances

2. What are some Examples of Successful Projects?

• success from who’s perspective?
• safe communities
• strategy to recommendations
• tribal council programming
• family, community services are the beginning
• communicating with grass roots
• share territory
• RAMP, White Buffalo Youth Lodge (partnerships)
• Healthy people
• Time
• Constant pushing from community
• Leaders willing to take risks
• Willingness to shift resources
• Metis and First Nations people as partners
• Alternatives to jail
• the Alberta implementation of the Summit on Justice (not entirely successful but an example)
• child care center in Pinehouse
• Headstart, Kids First, home for apprehended youth
• Community wants and needs
• Family orientated activities
• Community development corporation in La Loche
• Alternative measures
• Day care centers (only four in northern Saskatchewan)
• Linn report
• Tools to look after selves
• Independent youth body find new road
• Address issue of police
• Support communities
• Able, practical, flexible
• Road map
• Champions of change
• Go public
• Northern Framework Agreement
• North Battleford Youth Center
• HEAT
• Urban multi-purpose youth Commission
• Courtworker program
• Hollow Water

3. What are your Suggestions for the Commission?

• treatment of people
• restore sense of justice
• legislated ombudsman from community
• partnerships
• create awareness
• look at other implementation models
• process to determine if person broke law very alienating
• convince technicians and bureaucrats
• legislate and negotiate to make permanent
• change attitudes
• tailor service to client needs
• who set the stage? Who controls the process? Community input and ownership
• health, education and economic development
• increase Aboriginal officers and cross-cultural training
• examine police officer’s discretion
• the body should be legislated, independent from line departments
• accountable to the legisature
• ombudsperson like body accountable to community
• not be a program of the Department of Justice
• not a ghettoized body
• not a granting agency
• public relations is important as there has to be constant buy-in
• develop and maintain good relationships
  • develop linkages
  • traditional teachings
  • community development avoid reinventing the sheel
• promote change
• report to the legislature, identify progress, concerns and issues
• referral agency
• monitor investigations
• build capacity
• avoid it being a single bullet vehicle

PCI analysis attempts to get as many ideas on the table as possible. It identifies the pros and cons of the concept before you. Each group examined the four possible models for the implementation vehicle using this analysis.

Pros

• keep issues on the table and people talking about them
• knowledge empowers people
• build relationships
• collaborative change (lacks authority and instead works with the different interested parties for a solution)
• legislated access to information
• link up to existing services
• could be part of a long term change strategy
• it could be independent so the power of the public would be behind it
• showcase successes

Cons

• lack of authority
• access to information could be problematic because of that
• too narrow a focus
• no speaker’s bureau (nobody attends those)
• can’t act on the information it has

Interesting

• think exists already in various organizations
• what are you educating on?
• If you have to go to all parties to educate, that could be problematic

Pros

• could be capacity building, develop businesses
• someone could call and the organization could give them strategies, an enabler
• person go to community, say what happen and the community could assist
• other people may know what is out there for resources
• sometimes, people do not know what question to ask
• build on what done before, not reinvent the wheel

Cons

• one more bureaucratic level
• needs to be community driven
• patriarchal
• too passive
• comes down to funding (lack of control over money, can’t change)
• take away community empowerment
• lots agencies do this
• could take over political voice, Aboriginal ghettoizing

Interesting

• could find way around barriers
• assist and enable change
• money and jurisdiction – it would be solution focussed?
• give advocacy strategies
• exist already?
• Doesn’t address funding disparity
• Can’t facilitate change without an education role

Pros

• create pressure
• inclusive
• meet senior officials

Cons

• need someone to represent the north
• could get off focus
• only conduct non-criminal investigations
• forget sense of partnership (adversarial)

Interesting

• cross-section of the community
• clarify parties
• voluntary participation?
• other bodies do that
• identify barriers to implementation
• should include municipal governments
• not use a "hammer" approach the first time

Pros

• most authoritative
• can recommend to the legislature, treasury board
• consultative

Cons

• now welcoming
• heavy handed
• excludes community
• force least effective way to promote change

Interesting

• working committee terms of reference
• need advocate but community control
• consultative, inclusive group
• who drive this? Conduct independent investigations
• vehicle legislated
• affiliated existing or new department