Bill C-92 (Historical)

An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families

This enactment affirms the rights and jurisdiction of Indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services and sets out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children, such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I actually find this really disingenuous from both sides. The Auditor General just spoke out about the Liberals' not investing enough in indigenous housing, calling the situation deplorable.

On Monday I was in committee, and we were talking about child welfare. The Conservatives were in the committee trying to obstruct the study of Bill C-92 on reconciliation, on providing and upholding the right of indigenous people to regain our self-determination over matters impacting our children. They were trying to hold up a committee with a carbon tax motion and were calling it urgent, when we have kids being murdered, pipelines and MMIWG, and kids going missing through the child welfare system. I find it very difficult.

We are talking about residential schools. There are lots of things the Conservatives can obstruct. I certainly hope that they are not using residential school survivors to obstruct a bill that needs to pass. If there is anything more scummy than that, it is obstructing the progression of lifting up the voices of residential school survivors.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very important question. Last June, the minister of justice did release an action plan. The challenge is that there are a number of different calls to action that need to be implemented, so there is a review of loss process that is being undertaken, which can take some time.

I do want to note that the UN declaration has been transformational. If we look at the decision on Bill C-92 and the Supreme Court of Canada, it really establishes how much of an impact UNDRIP has had on Canadian law. I am absolutely certain, and I know my friend opposite believes in this fundamentally as well, that this is going to transform this country in a way that other things have not. Therefore, I do look forward to working with her in furthering UNDRIP and also on other issues that are of mutual importance.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

I want to clarify. It's often said that it's at the pace at which communities want to go. I want to clarify that it's not really at that pace. I don't think we've ever not wanted jurisdiction over our kids. It's about the funding and resources that are provided to give back our human rights and to uphold UNDRIP so that we can care for our kids.

In the fall economic statement and the 2023-24 departmental plan, sunset of funding includes that in budget 2021 for mental health and wellness, and specifically funding from budget 2019 for continued implementation of Jordan's principle and supporting Inuit children, and funding to support individual compensation, capital expenditures, and immediate reforms of first nations child and family services and Jordan's principle.

What I find odd, when we talk about Bill C-92, is that there are still no plans for money. Jordan's principle keeps kids alive in my community, even though it's not often provided or given out in a timely manner in terms of service providers. That is sunsetting.

I've put forward amendments to EI to make sure that EI regimes would be consistent with how we choose to care for our children, which is a right affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It seems there's no consistency with this government in terms of when it is or isn't going to uphold the rule of law when it comes to indigenous human rights, particularly in relation to our children, depending on what the legislation is.

What concerns me is this. If there isn't a plan for total legislative reform, is this government really serious about implementing UNDRIP? We can't change things if people don't want to pay for that. There is a cost to violent colonization. One of the costs of that violence is the fact that we have an overrepresentation in the child welfare system.

Is there any plan to make sure legislation is consistent to affirm our right to have self-determination over the care of our children, whether in terms of EI, Jordan's principle or Bill C-92?

[Katrina Peddle]

That's a great question.

My colleague referred to the five-year review of the legislation. I think the best answers to those questions often come from communities in terms of what they've learned along the way. Just recently, several months ago, Louis Bull Tribe hosted a forum on lessons learned about using Bill C-92 as a tool to enact jurisdiction. We are trying to make sure that we always listen to those lessons around whether capacity building is broad enough. Does it do enough? Does it answer all of our questions?

Also, we really see, as we often see with these types of initiatives, the strength of communities helping each other to figure it out—saying what they did, where they found it challenging, and what worked really well—to try to make that as smooth as possible.

[Isabelle Quintal, Acting Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning Directorate, Department of Indigenous Services]

Yes, indeed, the Minister of Indigenous Services, in 2019, called an emergency meeting where indigenous partners, provinces and territories were all gathered to assess the fact that there was an overrepresentation of children in care. During that meeting, there was an agreement that six points of action would be developed and enforced.

One of those points of action was the creation of legislation that will allow indigenous groups to take care of their children. With that commitment and the desire to fulfill that point of action, Indigenous Services Canada met with over 2,000 indigenous people—elders, youth, agencies and communities—as well as provinces and territories, to gather their views on what that would look like. I think the engagement process of the development of Bill C-92 was really a co-development process, and it led to what is now the act.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you so much.

We're talking about children and reconciliation. I asked you a number of questions about Bill C-92 and monies attached.

Recently, the Conservatives put forward a bill, Bill C-318. I offered up amendments that were supported by the sponsor of the bill to include kinship and customary care in the new EI funding regime for adoption, to ensure that this government is upholding the rule of law, which now includes clause 5 of Bill C-15, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”. Bill C-318 passed in committee, making the bill now consistent with articles 19, 20 and 21 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was thrown out by the Liberal government, even though they have the ability to provide royal consent. I wrote a letter, in fact, to the government on February 27, 2024. The government still has an opportunity to uphold the rule of law.

If we're talking about reunifying kids, and we know that 90% of kids in care, certainly in Manitoba, are first nations kids, often in kinship and customary arrangements, does this government have any plan to uphold the rule of law and amend that legislation?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I see in subsection 22(3) of the act that indigenous laws prevail over provincial or territorial laws in case of conflict.

Could you tell us why that was important to include in Bill C-92?

[Katrina Peddle]

I can answer that question.

You made reference to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which is in the process of negotiating a coordination agreement. That process continues. I can't speak to the confidential nature of those negotiations, certainly, but I do think that what you see for the Northwest Territories is what you see elsewhere. There's an affirmation that the work that's been happening under Bill C-92 can continue, as the act has been found to be constitutional.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I was hoping that we would have some very forensic, detailed information when it comes to presentations to committee. This is my riding. This is their involvement. It leaves me out in left field when witnesses come unprepared. I'll have to wait to get that information in writing, I guess.

I'll ask another question.

Can the witnesses provide an update on how indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories are moving forward with their own self-determination following Bill C-92's implementation?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today and providing us with some very important information.

I understand that the Government of the Northwest Territories chose to intervene in this case before the Supreme Court in support of the Government of Quebec's challenge to Bill C-92. Their involvement in this case was strongly opposed by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, which has already passed its own child and family services law.

Are you able to speak to the arguments brought forward by the Government of the Northwest Territories and how the Supreme Court's ruling addresses their arguments?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With all due respect, I'm asking all these questions related to financing after the current government just spent years battling in court over being found to be wilfully racially discriminating against first nations kids. We have now put forward Bill C-92. We're talking good talk about reconciliation, but we still haven't figured out the financial resources. There has been a pattern of normalized discrimination against indigenous kids in this country.

[Katrina Peddle]

Thank you for that very good question.

The $200 million-plus amount you see in the graphic is the amount that has been disbursed to support capacity-building, but a total of approximately $1.6 billion has been disbursed for that and coordination agreements.

I agree with you that child and family services need slightly different funding. The purpose of Bill C-92 is to focus on prevention and ensure that the communities have the flexibility they need to tackle great challenges. That's one of the principles laid out in the bill. No one can say that these are not great challenges. They are significant and they are difficult. However, the communities will be able to make their own decisions about where to prioritize investments and resources. For instance, they may choose to keep children in the community as opposed to placing them in foster care outside the community.

[Valerie Phillips, Director and General Counsel, Aboriginal Law Centre, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

It is an interesting statement by the court. They really talk about that in terms of “legislative reconciliation”, and they talk about that in the broader role of Parliament and parliamentarians. They make reference to the ability of Parliament to have a conversation with society and the courts and how, in passing laws like Bill C-92, even if, for example, they make findings around the self-government affirmation, there's still a message being sent by parliamentarians to society and the courts.

In terms of what that means for the larger interpretation of Canadian law and the braiding of laws, I think that remains to be seen. They don't provide specific guidance, but it is certainly giving a message that the UN declaration should be considered by courts in interpreting laws and should be part of parliamentarians' consideration of laws.

[Katrina Peddle]

That's a very good question. Thank you for it.

I think what we see is a problem that everyone recognizes across the board: The status quo is not working. There have been significant investments in the first nations child and family services program. That program's funding has increased by about 200% since 2006. However, taking control of those services, the jurisdictional piece under Bill C-92, does take a period of time. What we hope to see is that a community seeks to assert jurisdiction, moves through capacity building relatively quickly—it can happen in less than a year, depending on what communities wish to do and the timing of that—moves through coordination agreement discussions, and then assumes jurisdiction.

When jurisdiction has been assumed, those decisions about how the services will be run and with whom they contract are made by the community. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good morning, colleagues.

Good morning, guests.

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 99 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting today for its study of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 9, 2024, regarding An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Katrina Peddle, director general, Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families branch, and Katrina is joined by Isabelle Quintal, acting director general, strategic policy and planning directorate. From the Department of Justice, we have Valerie Phillips, director and general counsel, aboriginal law centre, and Paula Quig, senior counsel, aboriginal law centre.

Welcome.

Colleagues, our normal rules for the committee allow for a five-minute opening statement, but the departmental officials have asked for 10 minutes, since this is a one-off study, to set the stage. I'm going to ask for unanimous consent to allow a 10-minute opening statement, and then we'll get right into the rounds of questions.

I'm seeing agreement with that.

We have 90 minutes with our officials on this one-day study that we're doing. Then we will move into committee business. We'll go into that when we get to that point in the agenda.

I'll use a handy card system. When you have 30 seconds left, I'll show a yellow card, and when your time is up, I will show the red card. Don't stop mid-sentence, but do wind up your thoughts. We'll keep things moving along that way. I'll set my timer for 10 minutes. Whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Welcome. Thank you.