Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[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?

[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]

My third question is regarding challenges that may have been observed to date with off-reserve communities. As you probably know, the Northwest Territories has a number of indigenous communities, but they're public communities and not on reserve.

How would these challenges, facing some of the modern treaty governments in the Northwest Territories, affect their ability to move forward with their own child and family services legislation?

[Katrina Peddle]

Absolutely, the diversity of communities across the country is recognized throughout this statute. It is a distinctions-based approach that we adopt in co-development with partners.

We are in conversations with communities that are using modern treaties. We also have colleagues on the CIRNAC side of government who work directly with modern treaty holders. There's an option that's available to those communities whether they wish to use the act or use the modern treaty process to access child and family services.

[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'll defer to my Department of Justice colleagues.

[Paula Quig]

I can certainly comment on how that section works. I don't know that I have the background in terms of the intentionality behind the inclusion of that provision, but if it's useful, I can talk about what that provision and section 21 do.

Subsection 22(3) puts in place the legal doctrine of federal power paramountcy. Basically, it provides that provisions of a federal law will prevail over a provincial law. The combination of section 21 and subsection 22(3) means that indigenous laws become incorporated as federal laws under the act. Through that incorporation and reference process, those indigenous laws are paramount over provincial laws if there is a conflict or a situation of inconsistency. It's a significant provision in terms of ensuring that those laws are paramount over the provincial laws that could be inconsistent.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. We're out of time.

We'll now go to Monsieur Lemire, for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Meegwetch.

Indigenous children are removed from their homes because of overcrowded and substandard housing, food insecurity and poor access to services. Their parents and communities have little power or control over those things due to a lack of resources, which have to come mainly from the federal government.

Against that backdrop, a billion dollars has been distributed. How much of that money has gone to Quebec so far? How did those negotiations take place, and which communities have benefited?

[Katrina Peddle]

We are in the process of negotiating a coordination agreement with the community of Obedjiwan, but we haven't signed an agreement yet. The resources still being allocated to the Quebec City area will be allocated once the negotiations are concluded.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The legislation was passed four years ago. Obviously, it's been challenged. As I understand it, instead of planning and being proactive so it could get the money out quickly, the government put everything on hold during those four years. As a result, the children are still the ones paying the price.

I'm going to switch topics. I'd like you to comment on this next question, which may be more for the justice officials. What precedent did the Supreme Court's decision set in terms of relationships between the provinces? As we know, the Government of Quebec sought to have its jurisdiction respected.

[Valerie Phillips]

Thank you for your question.

I'm going to answer in English.

The court found that the law was within federal legislative jurisdiction. In terms of extrapolating going forward, it's an opinion of the court; it's not a decision, so technically it's not binding, but it is treated as a precedent. Ultimately, they did find that it is within the federal Parliament's legislative jurisdiction. It's very difficult to speculate about what this means going forward. I think they were very careful to speak directly to the legislation and the question that were in front of them.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It's reasonable to think that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're finished for—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

—if it's within your jurisdiction, you're the one who'll have to pay for it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry; we're out of time.

Ms. Gazan, you have two and a half minutes.

[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?

[Katrina Peddle]

I would be unable to answer that question. I can certainly endeavour to provide you with a written answer. It's outside my purview.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do think that we require a written answer, but I also think that it's very timely, because if you're not willing to change legislation when you're talking about child welfare systems that will essentially exclude 90% of the kids in care, it's probably not a very effective piece of legislation.

I know that the government currently has a bill in place—I believe it's Bill C-59—around adoptive care. I'm wondering if the government has any plans to ensure that they uphold the rule of law and make sure it's consistent with Bill C-15 and articles 19, 20 and 21 in terms of adoption care. Are there any plans for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time, but if you can answer briefly, in a sentence or two, it would be appreciated.

[Katrina Peddle]

I'm not able to speak to that question, but I can certainly bring it back.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

If you could provide a written response, that would be great.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Our clerk is keeping track of all the written questions, so we'll be following up with those.

We will now move to Mr. Melillo, who will have five minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here for this important discussion.

I just want to quickly ask a higher-level question in terms of the process of coming to this legislation. For anyone who could speak to it, could you speak to the consultation process, how this was developed and if there were perhaps some other proposals or suggestions as to how this could be brought forward throughout that process? What led you to the framework that exists today?

[Katrina Peddle]

I'll start, and then I'll turn to my colleague Isabelle Quintal to answer that question.

This was the result of convening many partners to try to address what was considered a national emergency, which remains a very urgent matter, about the overrepresentation of indigenous children across the country.

For further details, I'll turn to Isabelle.