Evidence of meeting #152 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We feel that such an amendment would not be accurate, as child and family services is in an area of shared jurisdiction. As affirmed by the bill, indigenous groups can determine to exercise their jurisdiction should they choose to do so. We will not be supporting the amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This amendment falls at line 15 on page 10, and is part of an effort to ensure that the inherent right to jurisdiction over child and family services includes the authority to confer decision-making powers to independent indigenous bodies or to judges empowered to decide similar matters under provincial legislation.
This was part of the recommendation by Justice Sébastien Grammond in the article “Federal Legislation on Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada”, which I'm sure all of you have reviewed.
I hope this amendment would be well-received because I think it does a substantial amount to prepare the ground to ensure that indigenous decision-making governs child and family services, which is the goal of the government, as we've heard throughout this committee hearing. The inherent right to jurisdiction being acknowledged in this legislation, at this point, in this clause, would move us substantially in that direction.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 18 agreed to)
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20)
Liberal
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I move this amendment. I think it speaks to the reality that we hope the transition is very successful, but there are some key elements such as regional and national technical support, data collection and so forth, which are not there. That will impede the goal of universal success. We want to make sure that this addresses the issue that there's some flexibility to move with the communities to ensure success as things unfold.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
There is a suggestion this may go beyond the scope of the bill.
MP Bossio, did you want to speak to it?
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
That's fine. If the legislative clerk feels that it goes beyond the scope of the bill, then that would deal with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
There's no question because it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
We'll go to amendment NDP-20.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Again, this is around making sure that there are more concrete dates, which need to be set out, and assuring that there's support for those communities as we move forward.
It is so moved.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
This amendment would not be consistent with what indigenous groups have been requesting throughout our engagement. Some indigenous groups have requested that they be able, under the bill, to exercise their jurisdiction as soon as they wish to do so. Imposing a 10-month notice before being able to exercise jurisdiction would not respect the spirit of subclause 20(1). Indigenous groups should be free to exercise their jurisdiction as they see fit, and the bill should not unduly impose limitations as to how they can choose to exercise their jurisdiction, so we will not be supporting that.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is to add regulations to prescribed measures for the negotiation of coordination agreements. This is to open up the scope for regulations that will help with the negotiation of coordination agreements. I think it works particularly well with Jane Philpott's amendments to section 32, which are also coming up, so that we can detail the aspects of the coordination agreements and the negotiations process that could be regulated by order in council, by the Governor in Council.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Clearly this kind of amendment would expand the scope of the bill's legislative authority to matters such as education or health. What testimony are you pointing to that would justify the expansion of this bill in such a manner?
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I don't see it as an expansion. We know that the bill's focus is going to be on ensuring that there are negotiated agreements. In moving forward in negotiated agreements, you may in fact need to have regulations. If you don't have the empowering section here in the legislation for such regulations, you'll have to go back and amend the act later to be able to bring in regulations that may be needed.
I'm afraid I can't point to testimony. It just seems to me that a way of ensuring the bill can function well in the future is to have the authority to bring in regulations if you need them. If you don't need them, you never need to have this section, but if you do need regulations in relation to coordination of the different agreements that are being negotiated, you won't have that power.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Chair, I would like the officials to come up and speak to that particular issue. Do they perceive that there is a gap that needs to be filled by this amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Yes. Maybe they could provide information as to whether this would actually extend the scope of the bill as well.
Director General, Child and Family Services Reform, Department of Indigenous Services Canada
Good morning once again.
The general regulatory power already exists in the bill under clause 32, but it doesn't go into detail in terms of what exactly those regulations could look like. The intent of the bill was to leave it to the indigenous partners to discuss, in the transition, what areas would require regulations. Some of the items—tools other than regulation, like guidelines—may be useful. In other instances, it may be found that regulation is required, but we left it open so that, during the conversation, those items that are deemed appropriate to be regulated could be identified.
Green
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
If my amendment is accepted, I don't see any downside to having that as a further fleshing out of the ways in which we might be wanting to use the regulatory powers in section 32 by providing some additional guidance around that. From the point of view of officials, is there anything negative that occurs as a result of this amendment?
Director General, Child and Family Services Reform, Department of Indigenous Services Canada
From our perspective, the area where we may be outside of scope is with the terminology of “any matter”. This legislation is specific to child and family services. This amendment would open the scope to any issue: education, health. Therefore, in the way it is proposed, it would appear to us to be outside of scope.