Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2024

[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.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

How has the Supreme Court ruling, or the process of getting to the ruling, impacted not only this legislation but also, perhaps, future legislation?

[Katrina Peddle]

I think it's difficult to speculate.

I'll turn to my Justice colleagues for a comment.

[Valerie Phillips]

Could you clarify your question?

Do you mean in terms of the consultation and co-operation process in developing it?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

It's in terms of the Supreme Court process and the ruling that came out of it.

[Valerie Phillips]

How will it influence future legislation? It is very difficult to speculate. As I mentioned before, the court was very careful to stick to the nature of this legislation and the affirmations made within it. It affirmed very positively that this kind of legislation is within federal legislative jurisdiction.

I think that's what we can take from the decision.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much for those answers.

Very quickly, Mr. Chair, while I have the floor, I'd like to give notice of a motion. I want to be clear that I'm not moving the motion. I just want to provide notice of it while I have the opportunity.

Simply, the motion is as follows:

Given that First Nations and Inuit police services do important work to keep members of the communities they serve safe,

That, in the opinion of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, these police services provide an essential service and should be declared essential, and that this be reported to the House.

That's the entire substance of the motion.

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to briefly speak about why I'm bringing it forward.

Obviously, first nations and Inuit police services provide essential services for the residents they serve. The government has, in the past, spoken about the need for legislation to ensure there's proper designation of them as essential. Mr. Chair, that was promised in 2022. Two years later, the government still hasn't acted on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. I'm going to jump in.

We are straying out of what's allowed right now.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You were giving a notice of motion. Now we're getting into debate on the motion. It's not in order at this point. I'd say we probably shouldn't be going there. There will be time to debate it when we get to it.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

You still have about 40 seconds on your questions, if you want to go back to that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I'll say that I look forward to having a more wholesome discussion on that motion at the appropriate time. I hope I'll be able to get support from colleagues across the table on that, as it is very important to people across the country—first nations and Inuit, in particular. Unfortunately, we've seen tragic circumstances as a result of this underfunding and lack of proper funding from the federal government.

I think I've exhausted my time and I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Perfect. Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Battiste, who will have five minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

You mentioned the Supreme Court introducing the notion of “legislative reconciliation”. Specifically, the court noted that “reconciliation is a long-term project. It will not be accomplished in a single sacred moment, but rather through a continuous transformation of relationships and a braiding together of distinct legal traditions”. Those are the court's words, not mine.

We talked a bit about UNDRIP and what this could possibly mean for the future. I'm wondering if you could talk to us about how the implementation of UNDRIP can contribute to resolving issues surrounding the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care.

[Valerie Phillips]

I can speak to it generally. Then my colleagues from Indigenous Services can speak about the program.

The UN declaration has been described as a “framework for reconciliation” in Canada. The court references that in its decision. As I mentioned earlier, it speaks very highly of the legislation that Parliament passed. It talks about legislative reconciliation as “the enactment of legislation 'to respect, promote, protect, and accommodate inherent rights through mechanisms or frameworks elaborated upon within the statute'”. They looked at the construction of this statute, particularly recognizing the jurisdiction of indigenous governments and the very essential character of the relationships among parents, children, families and communities. Healing and having some autonomy over those relationships are essential to reconciliation. The court certainly considered all of those different aspects of law, and the UN declaration in particular, in reaching its opinion.

In terms of the program itself, I don't know if my colleagues want to add on.

[Katrina Peddle]

I think the purpose of the act is to further UNDRIP's purpose as well, which is really to ensure that decisions that are made about the most important relationships are made by the people who are directly affected by them, the indigenous communities themselves.

The purpose is to reassert jurisdiction where it has been for thousands of years, and for that support to be a bit different from what we've seen historically in child welfare to really be prevention-based and strengths-based in terms of what a community has to offer its children.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I want to talk a little bit about the map that was handed out here. I noticed that there are a lot of different provinces and territories that are on here. As someone who's from Nova Scotia, I'm noticing that Nova Scotia is not one of those with a dot, as well as Nunavut. I'm wondering if you could speak to why there is seemingly no active update or progress happening in those two areas.

[Katrina Peddle]

I think it really depends on which communities want to do what and when. The act is one tool. There are many tools in terms of what communities are already actively doing, so if you don't see something on the map right here, it doesn't mean that there's no change happening in terms of child and family services.

I would say that I work on the act side. My colleagues who work on the program side have seen very many changes, particularly for Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, around preventative care, around rethinking what exactly they're trying to do, so I do think that what you see here is a partial representation of the overall area of work that's happening.

We always go at the pace at which communities wish to proceed.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Just to be crystal clear on this, for the money that's out there—I think it's more than $40 billion—Nova Scotia, despite having its own Mi'kmaq child and family services, will be eligible. A portion of the money that comes from this will actually be going into Nova Scotia. Is that correct?

[Katrina Peddle]

Absolutely.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

In my last bit of time, I just want to talk a little bit about Jordan's principle. There's a lot of discussion around some of the delays that are out there. I'm wondering if the department could talk a little bit about concerns about the delays in processing Jordan's principle claims and what this could possibly mean moving forward.

How are we remedying these delays or what is seen as non-action?

[Katrina Peddle]

We do work alongside colleagues in Jordan's principle. It's not our area of work. We'll get you a written answer to that question, but I do understand there's been a significant increase in requests as communities understand better what's available under Jordan's principle, and there's active work being undertaken to address any delays.

We'll provide you with a written answer to that question.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's time.

We have time for one more round of 15 minutes, so it will be five minutes, five minutes, two and a half, and two and a half.

With that, we'll jump right to it, with Mr. Shields going first for the Conservatives for his five minutes.