National Association of Friendship Centre applied an urban lens to the Calls to Justice (C2Js) of the MMIWG Inquiry with a focus on the four pathways requiring address “to reclaim power and place”.

1. historical, multigenerational, and intergenerational trauma;
2. social and economic marginalization;
3. maintaining the status quo and institutional lack of will;
4. ignoring the agency and expertise of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.

NAFC takes two analytical approaches which provide two different insights:

• the first is a narrow read of the CTJs that speak to program, service and other needs that exist in urban contexts;
• the second is a broad read where we apply the underlying logic to the CTJs to understand their spirit and intent and then apply them to urban issues in ways that might not be apparent at first glance.

Our analytical approach rests on the basis that the CTJs are meant to be understood as promoting, enabling and supporting self-determination and, as a result, can be broadly read and interpreted by Indigenous groups seeking to take steps to address systemic violence and its root causes.

There are 7 main categories of CTJs applying to urban Indigenous peoples:

• recommendations to ensure adequate services,
• housing recommendations,
• income and economic security recommendations,
• safety and security recommendations (including policing),
• recommendations pertaining to justice (including supporting victims),
• recommendations pertaining to child welfare, and
• recommendations pertaining to training or cultural awareness.

A Narrow Road:

Only 5 CTJs specifically include urban Indigenous peoples by direct reference. Those CTJs call for:

• access to housing (4.6);
• counting urban Inuit people in order to determine Inuit population numbers (16.6);
• creating shelters, safe houses and second-stage housing for Inuit in cities (16.19);
• creating culturally appropriate programming for urban Métis (17.7);
• building up 2SLGBTQQIA communities (18.7).

In our view, the scarcity of urban-specific recommendations reinforces that urban Indigenous peoples are meant to be included in broader CTJs that have clear and direct implications for urban Indigenous peoples.

Main Take-aways from a Narrow Road

Urban Indigenous service providers should be fully supported by the relevant jurisdiction(s) for:

• Participating in the planning and creation of a National Action Plan (1.1.);
• Offering no-barrier and status-blind programming addressing employment, housing, education, safety and healthcare (1.1);
• Services and programs related to democratic participation and inclusion (1.4);
• Social, economic, and cultural programming, including distinctions or nation-specific cultural programming related to language or knowledge, as determined by the needs of Indigenous clients (1.6, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5);
• Programs, including campaigns, to prevent violence, including combatting lateral violence (1.8, 1.9);
• Participation in the development and support of an Anti-Racism and Anti Sexism National Action Plan (2.6)
• Culturally appropriate health and wellness services, including community-based trauma-informed programs, that are barrier free and status-blind (3.2, 3.4, 3.6)
• Community-based programming to improve social and economic security (4.2)
• Design and deliver programs and services to promote the safety and security of those  in the sex industry, in partnership with those who have lived experience in the sex industry (4.3)
• Housing supports, including transition homes, shelters, safe spaces, etc. (4.6, 4.7)
• Partnering and/or collaborating with police services, child welfare services, legal services, and other services that come into direct contact with vulnerable urban Indigenous people (9.8, 10.1, 12.11)

A Broad Read

Suffice it to say, given the report’s emphasis on culturally appropriate programs and services, self-determination, the reclaiming of power and place, and given both the high population of urban Indigenous peoples (i.e., over 50%) and high rates of violence, it is reasonable to conclude that CTJs might have multiple reasonable interpretations within the urban Indigenous context. Indeed, the principles prefacing the CTJs clearly indicate this to be the case.

We think the question can be answered by imagining CTJs as a desired future end-state and working backwards from there to here today. The steps along the way are what we believe are the “broad read” that fall within the spirit and intent of the CTJs. We have taken a simple analysis pathway and have come up with some reasonable interpretations at the end of this section. However, there are any number of reasonable interpretations, so the process matters more than the outcomes we arrived to.

Based on our broad read, we interpreted the Inquiry to suggest that urban Indigenous organizations may undertake and should receive support for:

• communications functions, such as capacity to undertake public relations or to promote Indigenous-positive media stories (2.7, 6.1)
• programs or services related to transit (4.8)
• Culturally relevant victims services and independent legal services (5.6)
• Activities that contribute to judicial appointments and appointments related to policing (5.12, 9.2)
• legal aid (5.13)
• research related to men who commit violence (5.25)
• Advising current health providers on the creation and delivery of trauma-informed services (7.2)
• Collaborative health initiatives delivered through health and wellness service providers on a variety of areas for Indigenous men, boys, women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA
• training healthcare providers on Indigenous history, language, culture, and healing practices, and deliver anti-bias and anti-racism training (7.6)
• programming, training, or funding programs to encourage indigenous peoples to train for and pursue careers in health and wellness (7.7, 7.8)
• programming or training related to Indigenous culture and history for those in the legal profession (10.1)
• programs, services, and/or policy development related to resolving issues of poverty, housing, and food security (12.4)
• distinctions or nations-based programming related to language or culture for children and youth (12.6)
• programs, services, and/or policy development related to supporting those who are “aging out” from the child welfare system (12.11)
• the development and/or delivery of programming for men and boys to confront and end violence (14.12)

Click to access mmiwg_finalreport-sept2020.pdf