Evidence of meeting #96 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The meeting is resuming. When the committee suspended, there was discussion on amendment NDP-1. Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-1?
Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by thanking the committee for bringing this debate forward on Bill C-318. I specifically want to thank the MP for Battlefords—Lloydminster for her work in bringing this study forward. I also want to say thank you to all the witnesses who testified and to all the parents and the adoptive parents for the incredible love and commitment they demonstrate. I believe the discussion we're having here....
The government bill that will be coming forward as well, which has already been tabled under Bill C-59, also recognizes that selflessness, commitment and love of adoptive parents.
I also want to thank my colleague Ms. Gazan for bringing this very thoughtful amendment forward. We want to do everything possible to make sure not only that the federal laws and policies that we bring forward align with and are consistent with UNDRIP and our responsibilities under UNDRIP, but that our policies, programs and laws also reflect the priorities of first nations, Inuit and Métis people in our country.
This is an important amendment that has been brought forward, and I believe it's an amendment that ought to be studied further. I believe it requires additional research and thoughtful conversation, and above all careful and considerate consultation with first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. This is important.
Obviously, children are at the very centre and heart of the work of this government, and so for that reason I do believe there are questions about this amendment that need to be answered. There is information that needs to be brought forward. I believe that there ought to be a process in place whereby that information can come forward to members of this committee as well as to members of government in designing these policies.
I do believe we are skipping an important step of consultation here, first and foremost, as well as deliberation and information, and so for that reason I will be abstaining from voting on this amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.
Madame Gazan, you had your hand up. Then we'll go to Madame Chabot.
We're on the amendment.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you so much for your feedback. I have a couple of things.
This is not a choice: When Bill C-15 became law, there was a legal obligation for MPs to make sure that things were consistent with Bill C-15, so I don't think we're doing anybody any favours by not upholding the rule of law today, full stop.
On the matter of customary and kinship care, the government is saying it still needs to consult when there is ample evidence. The Liberal government has said they support the national inquiry on issues around the child welfare system, and indigenous leadership across the country has been very clear that we need control over our own child welfare systems, which includes having customary and kinship care as a main form of keeping our kids within our communities. We know, certainly in my community, that kids are aging out of care and being dropped off at the Salvation Army. One has only to look at the impacts of the sixties scoop, when kids were taken out of their families and communities and shipped off to other places, to see what that looks like in our communities today, and I'll tell you what it looks like: It looks like a whole lot of people—thousands of people—living with complex mental health issues and trauma after being adopted out and having to live in families where they suffered the most outrageous abuse, something that this government hasn't even looked at yet.
This is an opportunity for the Liberal government and all parties to unanimously support the human rights of indigenous kids in this country, and once again I'm in a committee where that is not happening.
Child welfare is a pipeline to the justice system. Child welfare is a pipeline to become murdered or missing—murdered or missing men and boys and murdered or missing indigenous women and girls.
We have an opportunity to uphold our legislative duties, to uphold the Constitution, which now includes Bill C-15, and the fact that we are using consultation as an excuse shows the normalization of violence against indigenous people in this country that has been perpetrated through systems and, I would say, at the very worst, through child welfare systems. This is why lead advocates for this bill called for the inclusion of customary and kinship care.
Abstaining is silence. It's saying, “I'm going to stay silent to violence against indigenous kids in this country.” It's time we get our kids back. Given the kind of violence that kids undergo in the child welfare system and the stories that you hear about the way the system has failed our kids—including for my own family and in the case of my mother, who grew up in child welfare—we have an obligation today to do what's right.
I am asking everyone at the table for the votes to show a true act of reconciliation. That's what I'm asking for in honour of the kids who have been lost in systems. I'm asking for your courage today to not abstain.
I'm going to leave it at that, but I wanted to share that, because that is how critical this amendment is. I'm glad that the Conservative folks around the table and the Bloc along with the NDP understand the critical nature of these amendments when we're talking about anything related to child welfare.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Ms. Gazan.
Madame Chabot, go ahead, please, on the amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we are all encouraged to vote in favour of Bill C-318, which fundamentally seeks to recognize the equity between adoptive and biological parents. I don't think this is the only inequity in the EI system that we need to address, but that's another issue.
That goes without saying. Adoptive parents, in particular, have testified very accurately about what an adoption can mean. I must say that I am quite proud because this has been done in Quebec since 2021.
In all fairness, we shouldn't have any reservations about passing this bill. I also agree with the amendments proposed by Ms. Gazan of the NDP. Beyond all the studies that will have to be done, the purpose of these amendments, according to the principle of the bill, is to take into account the culture based on the group's customs and traditions, as well as the children who are being placed who are not with their parents. I think that's the spirit of the wording. This can indeed lead to recognition so that, according to customs and traditions, those who welcome a child can benefit from the benefits we are about to adopt.
I think it's a matter of principle. I think it is well worded in each of the provisions where it is necessary. I completely agree with that. I don't think another meeting is required to weigh the pros and cons.
I urge us to vote in favour of this amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
January 29th, 2024 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you very much, Chair.
The substance of the amendment we are debating right now is to ensure that kinship and customary care will be added to this bill.
I find it very frustrating when MP Kusmierczyk makes the accusation that consultations weren't done, that they weren't completed and that the committee didn't hear. I've met with many stakeholders in the drafting of this bill. We also had many witnesses come here to testify. Does the excuse of an abstention due to lack of consultation mean there was no consultation put into Bill C-59? That would be my question.
We're voting in favour of this amendment to ensure that it is put into Bill C-318.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Mr. Coteau is next on the amendment.
I would remind members to speak to the amendment.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Yes, it's on the amendment.
I have a question for the member opposite, whose bill we're discussing here.
Did you consider putting this amendment in before, when you consulted with the indigenous community? Why were they excluded from your bill?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I think the chair gave me the floor.
Maybe the member wasn't listening when I took the floor the first time to address MP Gazan in thanking her for doing this. They weren't intentionally left out—indigenous people. The way I assumed this would happen is that they would have access to it as they generally do. This is something that's going to solidify it to make sure nothing gets missed on the regulation standpoint.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I've been involved in crafting legislation for child protection. It was a 250-page document in Ontario when we wrote the entire child protection act, and it took several years to get to that point.
My concern here is that there's a.... The member opposite knows that I'm very supportive of the indigenous community and many of the pieces she's talking to. My problem right now is that I feel this is a last-minute attempt to fix something that fundamentally doesn't really cover a comprehensive issue that deserves more attention than this. To miss out completely on the indigenous community and at the last minute throw them in with an amendment, rather than building a comprehensive type of bill, worries me. What else is missing here? What else has been left out?
I'm personally not going to support this amendment, based mainly on the fact that I don't think it does justice to the indigenous community.
I respect the member opposite who made the amendment. I think that's the right thing to do, but I don't have confidence in just putting this in at the last minute without really going out there and listening to the community. They've been completely ignored in this bill. They're not included in it. I think it's insulting to the community, to be honest.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Again, it's respect, but here's the thing: There's been lots of research, documentation and publications by indigenous child welfare agencies supporting the need for kinship and customary care. What's missing is that family members or kinship and community often have to take on this responsibility with zero income.
You find me an indigenous person.... You talk about disrespect. I'll tell you what's disrespectful to indigenous communities from my perspective, speaking as one indigenous person: It's that we have to consult about stupid stuff like whether we want toilets and how we feel about clean drinking water in our community. You find one first nations community that doesn't want to have control over matters that impact their kids in a way that is consistent with our customs and traditions. You find me one.
This is at the very foundational level of the TRC. One of the worst things was that the state stole our kids and then criminalized us as parents. The state did that, and now the state continues to do that through the child welfare system. The only people who are wards of states are kids in child welfare and people who are incarcerated, and for most kids in care, it is like a lifetime incarceration that leaves lasting identity issues and lasting issues.
We cannot risk children having to be taken away from family and community for issues of poverty, which sometimes results in kids going into care. It's not lack of parenting but issues of poverty. The consultation piece about saying we're not doing indigenous people justice doesn't fly, which is why I put forward this amendment, which is what we're supposed to do in committee. It's that people put forward legislation, even in parties that are not my own, and my job as a legislator is to put forward amendments to strengthen legislation.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
And you've done a good job.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes.
With all respect, I know change is hard, and I mean this, but when are we going to be brave enough to just honour human rights without question and qualification? I'm hearing questions and qualifications, and now it's consultation. That does not fly, especially with what has been said loud and clear by leaders in our community, including our women.
I'm going to leave it at that. I don't mean to sound like Martin Luther King. I'm not trying to, but this is like....
This is about our kids. If the government is too scared to give our kids back, when are we going to reconcile in this country to give us what we need to look after our kids?
I'm going to leave it there.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Seeing no further discussion on NDP‑1, I will ask for a vote on NDP‑1, the amendment to clause 1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 1 carry as amended?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
The following clauses have no amendments. With unanimous consent, we can group them. On clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, no amendments were received. Shall clauses 2 through 7 carry?
(Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 8)
On clause 8, we have amendment NDP-2.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you. We want to amend for exactly the same reason. It's to be consistent with Bill C-15. This is the amendment:
For greater certainty, in this Part, a reference to the placement of one or more children with a self-employed person for the purpose of adoption includes a situation in which one or more Indigenous children are placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a self-employed person, other than their parent, for the purpose of giving the self-employed person primary responsibility for providing their day-to-day care.
It's for the same reasons I put forward before: to be consistent with Bill C-15 and the articles in UNDRIP that I outlined.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Is there any debate on the amendment referenced, NDP-2?
Oh, I'm sorry; before we get to debate, again it's my responsibility as chair to follow the procedure adopted by the House, which requires me to rule on the admissibility of amendments.
Again, Bill C-318, as it was presented to the committee and debated by the committee, introduces a new type of special benefit, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a self-employed person different from the child's parents, following processes that are different from the provincial adoption process indicated in the bill. The claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and therefore it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. My ruling is not subject to debate but can be challenged.
Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'd like to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair. We need to get our kids back.