Indigenous Governing Bodies, Bill C-92, and Adoption in the NWT

Since the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families came into force in 2020, the question of who governs child welfare in the Northwest Territories has become genuinely complicated. For families pursuing adoption of Indigenous children in the NWT — which includes the vast majority of children in the departmental system — understanding Indigenous Governing Bodies, their authority, and what "coordination agreements" actually mean in practice is no longer optional background knowledge. It is essential.

What Bill C-92 Changed

Bill C-92 — the shorthand for the federal legislation — affirmed something that Indigenous peoples had long asserted: that jurisdiction over child and family services is an inherent right of Indigenous peoples, not a provincial or territorial grant.

Practically, the law established:

1. National minimum standards for child and family services that apply to Indigenous children across Canada, regardless of which government is providing those services
2. A pathway for Indigenous Governing Bodies to assert jurisdiction over child welfare through a process of coordination agreements and eventually independent laws
3. Priority placement requirements that rank placement options for Indigenous children — with Indigenous family, then community members, then other Indigenous families ranking above non-Indigenous placements

In February 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Bill C-92 as constitutionally valid, confirming that Indigenous jurisdiction over child welfare is a constitutional right under section 35.

What Is an Indigenous Governing Body?

An Indigenous Governing Body (IGB) is the body that represents a particular First Nation, Inuit group, or Métis group, and which is recognized as having the authority to act on behalf of that group in legal and governance matters.

In the NWT, the relevant IGBs include:

• Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) — representing Inuvialuit peoples in the Beaufort-Delta region
• Tlicho Government — representing Tlicho people in the Monfwi riding area
• Dene Nation — umbrella organization representing various Dene First Nations across the NWT
• Dehcho First Nations, Akaitcho Territory Government, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, Gwich'in Tribal Council — regional bodies representing specific Dene and Gwich'in nations

Each IGB has different levels of engagement with the child welfare system. Some, like the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, have developed highly formalized processes. Others are at earlier stages of asserting jurisdiction.

The "Significant Measure" Requirement

Under Bill C-92, before any "significant measure" is taken with respect to an Indigenous child — including adoption placement — the relevant IGB must be notified. The IGB then has an opportunity to provide information and ensure that placement decisions align with the child's cultural interests.

In the NWT context, this means:

• Before a child is placed with an adoptive family, HSS must identify the child's specific Indigenous group and notify the appropriate IGB
• The IGB has a defined period to respond — in the Inuvialuit system, this is 30 days
• The IGB can provide information about the child's family connections, cultural identity, and community relationships that should inform the placement decision
• If the IGB is developing its own child welfare law, that law may eventually govern what happens to children from that group

For non-Indigenous families pursuing adoption of an Indigenous child, this notification requirement is not a rejection — it is a mandatory information-sharing step. The IGB's involvement is designed to ensure that placement decisions are culturally informed, not to veto them automatically.

Coordination Agreements: What They Mean

A coordination agreement under Bill C-92 is a formal agreement between an Indigenous group and the federal and/or provincial or territorial government that establishes how that group's child welfare jurisdiction will operate. It is a transitional mechanism — a bridge between the existing territorial system (the NWT's CFSA and Adoption Act) and the group's own future child welfare laws.

Coordination agreements typically establish:

• Which children the agreement covers (children of that particular Indigenous nation)
• How the IGB will be notified and consulted on decisions
• What role the IGB plays in placement decisions — advisory, participatory, or determinative
• How disputes between the IGB's position and territorial law will be resolved
• The timeline and process for the group to eventually assert fuller jurisdiction

In the NWT, various groups are at different stages of this process. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation has enacted its own formal Custom Adoption Regulation (2021-3 of the Inuvialuit Qitunrariit Inuuniarnikkun Maligaksat) that overrides certain territorial limitations for Inuvialuit children — including children of mixed parentage and those residing outside the NWT. Under this framework, Custom Adoption Commissioners must notify the Inuvialuit body before issuing a certificate, and the Inuvialuit Enrolment Committee has final say over disputes, effectively removing those decisions from the NWT court system.

The Tlicho Government has similarly been developing its governance framework for Tlicho children. The Dene Nation and regional Dene First Nations are at various stages of the same process.

What This Means for Adoptive Families

For families who are non-Indigenous and pursuing adoption of an Indigenous child from the NWT system, the practical implications are:

The placement timeline is not solely within HSS's control. If an IGB is notified and takes the full 30-day review period, that adds time to the process. If an IGB provides significant information that changes how HSS understands a child's cultural connections, that may affect which family is prioritized for placement.

The Cultural Connection Plan is not just an HSS requirement — it is now a rights-based obligation. A non-Indigenous family's commitment to maintaining an Indigenous child's cultural connection is assessed against the backdrop of Bill C-92's explicit priority for cultural continuity. Vague or performative cultural connection plans are less likely to satisfy HSS, and less likely to be accepted without IGB input.

Placement priority matters. Bill C-92's placement hierarchy means that an Indigenous family member, community member, or other Indigenous family who is willing and able to provide a safe home takes precedence over a non-Indigenous family, even a well-prepared one. Non-Indigenous families are not categorically excluded — they are in priority position five, which applies when the preceding four options are not available. Understanding this honestly helps families enter the process with appropriate expectations.

For custom adoptions specifically: if you are involved in or adjacent to an Indigenous community and a custom adoption arrangement is being considered, the relevant IGB is a participant in that process — particularly for Inuvialuit children, where the IRC's formal process is binding.

For Indigenous Families Asserting Customary Rights

For Indigenous families in the NWT navigating the ACARA process alongside the emerging IGB jurisdiction framework, the landscape is evolving. The Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act provides recognition for traditional custom adoptions through Commissioner-issued certificates. This remains the primary mechanism for formalizing customary adoption.

But as IGBs develop their own laws — some of which may eventually supersede ACARA for their members — the question of which authority governs which adoption is becoming more complex. Families who are unsure whether their adoption falls under ACARA, under an IGB's own laws, or under a combination, should seek clarification from the IGB representative directly before proceeding.

The Bigger Picture

The NWT is genuinely at the frontier of decolonizing child welfare law. This is both meaningful and practically complex. Families — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — pursuing adoption in the territory are operating in a system that is actively evolving, where the rules that applied two years ago may not apply in the same way today.

The Northwest Territories Adoption Process Guide covers the current state of the NWT adoption system, including Bill C-92's placement hierarchy, the Cultural Support Plan requirements, and how to work effectively with an HSS worker who is navigating multiple layers of authority. In a jurisdiction where the legal landscape is shifting, having an accurate and current picture of how the pieces fit together is the starting point for any placement decision.

The system's complexity is not a reason to avoid adoption. It is a reason to go in prepared.

See more Canada guides →