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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The chair's ruling has been challenged. I would ask the clerk to call a vote on the chair's ruling.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Ariane Calvert
Members, the question is, “Shall the chair's decision be sustained?” That means that if you vote in the affirmative, you're voting in support of the chair's decision, and if you vote in the negative, then you're voting against the chair's decision.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
The amendment NDP-2 is now on the floor for debate. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.
Liberal
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Once again we are going to have to debate. I know that there is going to be indigenous leadership watching this. I know that families and kids who are now fighting for compensation because of the abuse they experienced in care or because they're having identity issues because they were brought up away from their families are watching this right now, and we have an opportunity to do the right thing.
We are in different parties, but human rights are a non-partisan issue, and we can demonstrate an act of reconciliation by voting together today to remedy a system that has caused irreparable ongoing damage to indigenous families. Again, there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools, something that we always scoff at, or the fact that women and girls, men and boys are going missing and getting murdered. If you look at the research, you see that most of them spent time in child welfare away from family and community. Their families weren't given the same financial resources because this country doesn't recognize the way we care for our children, just as it did not recognize this kind of child care during residential school times, care that includes kinship and customary care arrangements in our community.
I'm pretty sure of the outcome, but I just want to bring the point home when it comes to violence in our communities. If you can't take a stand on child welfare.... You can still do the right thing here. I'm again going to ask everybody here to please do the right thing and vote for what indigenous leaders have fought for, which is child welfare reform, so that we don't have to do Jordan's principle settlements, whereby the Liberal government tries to give half the money that is owed as a result of kids in care.
I'm going to leave it there. Thank you.
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For people who are maybe trying to follow politics at home, we're trying to be as transparent and accountable as possible on this private member's bill that we're debating right now, which was brought forth by my colleague Ms. Falk to make it equitable for intended parents and surrogate parents so that they also have access to attachment—meaning EI—which makes total sense. It's a great bill.
Then, to my colleague Ms. Gazan's point, when we talk about indigenous families and kinship and customary care, it is a no-brainer to try to reunite families, right? I guess my question, through her, is just on the work she's done. I worked with her on child care around this bill as well, and we were very supportive of ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples.
Through you, Mr. Chair, why wouldn't this just be a no-brainer? I'm having a hard time. If people are watching at home, I guess that would be my question, through you, for Ms. Gazan. Why would we be having comments from the Liberals that there needs to be consultation or that this is an insulting amendment, as has been said today? It's just very confusing, and that they're just abstaining.... That would be my question, through you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Your comments are on the amendment.
Is there any other debate?
Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I don't know. I suspect it has to do with money.
I suspect it has to do with money because if I look at why the federal government was taken to court, it was for deliberately racially discriminating against first nations kids and child welfare on reserve. I'm not quite sure what it is, but I suspect it's money, and the more we keep discriminating, the more money it's going to cost the government, which is why it's important to uphold human rights and which is why I think this is happening.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, I really do appreciate the work of my colleague Ms. Gazan, who has brought this amendment forward.
This is an important issue. It's an important issue that we absolutely take to heart. I can tell you that every one of my colleagues at this table takes this amendment and this issue very seriously.
But simply put, we want to study it further. We want to understand it better so we can act on it. We need to understand it. First and foremost, I do believe that the principle of “nothing without us” is absolutely paramount. We want to hear from first nations, Inuit and Métis here around this committee table and on Parliament Hill on this very issue, and I think it is an important issue.
It's important for those watching at home to understand that our government is bringing forward a bill that will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive and intended parents. That bill is already in front of the House of Commons in the form of Bill C-59. That bill will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive parents. It builds upon the works of this committee. There will be an opportunity with the government bill that's moving forward, and hopefully, with the support of our opposition members, Bill C-59 will pass in the House quickly. Right now it's facing some headwinds from our opposition colleagues, but we hope to see it pass quickly so that we can get those benefits into the hands of adoptive parents as quickly as possible.
That bill will have an opportunity to come before committee, and there will be opportunities for first nations, Métis and Inuit members to come to Parliament Hill to talk about kinship and customary care relationships to provide members of Parliament with information and with deeper understanding of what that means and of how it fits into this EI policy framework.
It is an important issue, and we feel that it is so important that we want to hear from indigenous partners and communities. There will be an opportunity as this bill is debated at committee, as Bill C-59, which contains the EI provisions for adoptive parents, is debated in committee.
The principle of “nothing without us” is absolutely paramount, and on an issue as important as this one, we believe that it is absolutely imperative that we hear from indigenous partners, indigenous communities. There will be an opportunity to do that as Bill C-59, our government bill that will introduce 15 weeks of EI for adoptive parents, is brought before committee very shortly.
With the help and support of our opposition partners, it will come before committee very quickly.
Thank you.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Clearly there has been lots of consultation on child welfare. You just have to look at the work of Cindy Blackstock. Kinship and customary care are a top priority. I find it very patronizing to indigenous people that they think we're so stupid that we have to consult about things that we have been talking about publicly for years.
If you look at any first nations child welfare agency and if it's now an issue just because I'm bringing it up, maybe the onus isn't on us. Maybe if people really cared, they'd actually read, when they're spending money on reconciliation, what's being said. I know I'm emotional here, but our kids are dying on the streets.
I have to be honest: I don't care if you're bringing a bill forward. I'll sit in committee and I'll make the same amendments to your bill, and if the Conservatives vote against it, I'll say the same thing. Do you know why? It's because this is a human rights issue.
When you're using “nothing about us without us”, let me give you examples in real time about how it's everything about us without us, including the fact that this government spends nothing on murdered and missing indigenous women when we're very loud and clear about what the needs are, so please spare me. Our kids are dying. If we're going to make excuses about why we're not supporting the human rights of indigenous families to have the economic resources so that they have food on the table, then let's just be honest here about where this country's at with reconciliation. I don't want to hear about “nothing about us without us”, because I have a whole list of items that are happening without us.
When it comes to our kids, it seems to be a reachable excuse, and that is unacceptable to me. In fact, it's pretty racist.
I'm going to leave it there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I will again remind members to speak to the amendment.
Go ahead, Madame Chabot.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will support this amendment, as I did the other one. I believe there are four similar amendments, this being the second one. I want to point out that no one around the table is opposed to the principle of “nothing without us”, just as no one is opposed to the principle of “by and for” in the case of people with disabilities.
I would like to give an example related to the principle of “nothing without us”, even though it may not be relevant to the amendment. I'm wondering where the implementation of the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy is at. I agree with the principle of “nothing without us”, but in Bill C-318, there is a proposal that people who care for a child who is entrusted to them for a certain period of time for the purpose of adoption in accordance with indigenous customs and principles will receive 15 weeks of benefits. It seems to me that such a proposal does not require three years of consultations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
Seeing no further discussion, I will ask the clerk for a recorded vote on amendment NDP-2.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0)
Shall clause 8 carry as amended?
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
The next grouping is of clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the bill.
There have been no amendments received. With unanimous consent, I will ask for an indication of carrying clauses 9 through 13 as presented. I see no dissension.
(Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 14)
On clause 14, we have amendment NDP-3.
Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Chair.
Again, for consistency, proposed subsection 3.3 would amend as follows:
For greater certainty, in this section, a reference to a child who is in the care of an employee for the purpose of adoption includes an Indigenous child placed, in accordance with the customs [and] traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs, with an employee, other than the child's parent, for the purpose of giving the employee primary responsibility for providing the child's day-to-day care.
For the same reasons, Mr. Chair, I'm putting this amendment forward.
January 29th, 2024 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you.
My responsibility as chair is to rule on the admissibility of all amendments before the committee.
Bill C-318 amends the Canada Labour Code to introduce a new type of special benefit to extend parental leave in case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendment attempts to create another benefit where an Indigenous child could be placed with an employee other than the child's parents, following different processes than the provincial adoption process as indicated in the bill, and the employee could be entitled to an extended parental leave.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee—
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I no longer have access to the interpretation at all.
Bloc
Louise Chabot Bloc Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
You can continue speaking, but I did not have access to the interpretation.
Liberal