Evidence of meeting #150 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was services.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you all so much for being here today.
One of the questions as we deliberate this legislation is how long do indigenous children in this country have to wait?
I really appreciate the work of Cindy Blackstock. I think it's devastating in this country that we have seen so many non-compliance orders. We need to have ownership of that as a federal government. All the people in the House have to own part of that. It's quite distressing.
I believe we need to have funding in the legislation. At the very least we need to make sure that the resources are there for those communities to do the work they so desperately need to do.
You spoke a little about it, Pam, and I would love to hear from all of you. Does the funding have to be in the legislation?
I have heard many witnesses say, and I agree, it shouldn't be a dollar amount, but there have to be some strong funding principles. We have the Human Rights Tribunal decision that gives us some very good language that I think would be amazing to add to this legislation.
If I could start with you, Pamela, to talk about that, then move on to Jocelyn and Joshua, if there is anything they would like to add.
11:20 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
I agree, too. I agree with Dr. Blackstock's concerns and of course with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision around the need for funding. It can't be a principle; it can't be a “whereas” clause. There has to be a commitment with very specific guidelines about how that funding will be determined, that it will be population-based, needs based on circumstance and those kinds of things. It has to be flexible enough so that it can be negotiated but very directive so that people can't wiggle out of it, and it has to be a judiciable right. It has to be a substantive right in the legislation that we could take to court.
Part of the problem, once again, is that, if you leave it as principles or “whereas” clauses, you're asking the most impoverished people in this country, the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable, to have enough money to go to court to sue Canada over and over again, and there are millions of dollars in these cases.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is just one avenue, but when you're talking about court, you're literally talking about millions of dollars in experts. People who are working at friendship centres don't have enough money for that. First nations don't have enough money for that. Single moms and kids trying to address the system don't have enough money for that. To just say, “Well, you know, there's enough that maybe you can make some court arguments”, that's not it. I wholeheartedly agree with Cindy Blackstock when she says we have to be beyond first steps. We have to be beyond something's better than nothing. We have to be beyond incremental steps. You either have equality or you don't.
We're going to have to make a radical shift here. You're going to have to put the commitment in writing and make it a judiciable right for everybody, or what's the point of it? It's just another fluff policy piece so that we will have to sue again and spend many years in courts, and kids will lose their lives in foster care. We know it's not just damaging, but people lose their lives. It leads to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, human trafficking, child porn, people getting caught up in gangs and over-incarceration. Two-thirds of all indigenous people in prison come from the foster care system. All of these problems that we're trying to deal with can be dealt with in a very radical way if we just do what we're supposed to do on this, and that's have a human rights framework and a first nations framework. It's as simple as that.
11:20 a.m.
Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres
I'll add the experience from the Indian Child Welfare Act, which was enacted in 1970s and never had funding attached to it. Tribes are left to put together piecemeal funding to run their.... They have the jurisdiction, their tribal courts have jurisdiction, and they've had it since the 1970s. ICWA's a gold standard but with no funding attached. We've seen the same type of thing where it's piecemeal funding they've had to pull from many different sources, also heavily weighted towards removal, the same thing we've already seen, right? The sources of the funding are also not permanent, and they're not guaranteed, so every single year tribes have to scrape from wherever they can to pull together funding for their child welfare services.
There's a model here that was developed by the National Indian Child Welfare Association that shows the wide range of services available from beginning to end. If you're going to provide the full range of child welfare services within your tribe, this is what you need, from basic needs to adoption and guardianship and everything in between. There is no tribe currently that is able to provide this full range of services, even though they already have the jurisdiction. They've had some since the 1970s. What they have to do is partner. They have to scrape funding where ever they can. Some of them do the best they can, but not one of them has been able to provide the full range. I fear that, if we go down that road, we might end up with the same thing: first nations with jurisdiction but without the ability to fulfill the dream of the full range of services they want to provide.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
At the end of the day, it's the children who pay the price, which is the core issue here.
Joshua, just coming back to you, you talked about the importance of funding and how just a little bit would have made all the difference in trying to attain some of your dreams moving forward. It really made me reflect on the fact that, if you go through the foster care system, sometimes you don't have that core family to help you out who all pitch in a little bit of money to get you to that next step. I'm just wondering if you could talk about the importance of funding within this model to support children like you who have that experience of being in foster care.
11:25 a.m.
As an Individual
I think it would be great to have funding, going forward, to help kids who age out of care and kids who are in care. Provide more funding to help people with programs, or finding employment. Ms. Palmater is right. Kids do end up incarcerated, or they join gangs or do all that kind of stuff. If there's the proper funding to help people find employment, there's no reason for people to do all this. Being incarcerated, missing people and this and that. To me, it makes more sense to have more support out there for kids in care, and more help for young adults, because it's harder out there when you're older than 18, and there isn't the proper support.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you, Josh.
We have heard that from others—that the exit from child and family into adulthood is very steep and unsupported. Your words are heard. Hopefully, we'll see some changes.
Now we're going to have a couple minutes for MP Dan Vandal.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Thank you very much.
First of all, I thank all three delegations for your presentations.
It's great to see you, Josh. It's always nice to see another Manitoba Métis here in Ottawa. You're doing a great job.
My question is for Pamela Palmater. We've been working on this for a while. The issue of paramountcy is incredibly important in this bill. I want to read you subclause 22(3) and have you comment on it:
For greater certainty, if there is a conflict or inconsistency between a provision respecting child and family services that is in a law of an Indigenous group, community or people and a provision respecting child and family services that is in a provincial Act or regulation, the provision that is in the law of the Indigenous group, community or people prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.
That seems pretty clear to me, and pretty powerful. I'd like you to comment on how you interpret this.
11:25 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
Sure. You have to look at the section you're reading it from. It's specifically about conflict in relation to provincial laws, in the circumstance where a first nation has already signed a coordination agreement, or after the one year has expired, and there is no coordination agreement.
11:25 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
That's only for provincial law, and their law trumps only in the status of a federal law. It's not that the first nation.... They're talking about the first nations law, but keep in mind, this act talks about first nations laws as federal laws. It's not just provincial laws we have to worry about. It's also the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's also the charter. It's also section 35, in all the court cases. It's also the division of powers. It's also—
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
—clauses 10 to 15 in this act itself.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
That's not accurate, because subclause 22(1) has precisely the same wording, only the laws of the indigenous group or people will trump federal law, as well. We're not talking about the same thing here.
11:30 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
Okay, but read that very clearly. No federal law other than this act.... In this act, clauses 10 to 15 trump first nations laws. Just there, that's a—
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
—triumph over first nations laws.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
Oh my goodness, the best interests of the child is one of the reasons first nations kids are apprehended to begin with, and that's the problem. It's allowing—
11:30 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
—the status quo—
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual
—to trump first nations laws. There's no definition here.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
That was lively and informative. To those who came all the way, we want to say a special thank you for coming to committee on short notice, and providing your views, which are part of the permanent record of Canada. We will take your comments into consideration for potential amendments to the bill, and for future insights.
Meegwetch.
We suspend, and have a new panel joining us.