Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This amendment would modify the criteria necessary for the parties to benefit from the dispute resolution mechanism. As a result, the amendment would expand its mandate unnecessarily. The dispute resolution mechanism can only be truly helpful if parties demonstrate reasonable efforts to resolve their issues. The current version of the bill provides that the dispute resolution mechanism will be available:

if the Indigenous governing body, the Minister and the government of each of those provinces make reasonable efforts to enter into a coordination agreement but do not enter into a coordination agreement,

With the proposed amendment, such a requirement would be removed, so we won't be supporting that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Well, I'm sad to hear that.

My friendly amendment would be asking to just make sure it's an independent mechanism. I am going to move a subamendment to add that language about an independent process.

You can look at the other amendment and see what I mean. I just want to make sure that when we look at the response, it is an independent mechanism as opposed to—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Blaney, if the Green Party amendment is defeated, your motion then becomes valid.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Okay, so I will leave it at that.

Although I just want to add that—and I'm going to say it again and again—multiple times testimony has said that this needs to be in here. It's unfortunate that we're seeing this movement towards.... It's not about widening the scope; it's about making sure the mechanisms are in there to support the community going forward.

I look forward to speaking to my amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Now we're on NDP-22.

MP Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm happy to move this amendment, looking at the key issue that needs to be addressed, which is the independent dispute resolution process. The Canadian Bar Association talked about that. Pamela Palmater talked about this as well. It's really about making sure that the Canadian court interpretations that have been a part of this problem for so long should not be used in these situations.

I think it's an important amendment, and I certainly hope to receive some support.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 21)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

On clause 21, we have NDP-23.

Go ahead and make the motion, and then I'll make note that it's inadmissible.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I move this amendment. I'm sad to hear that it's being perceived that way.

This is really key. Almost every single witness sat in front of this committee and talked about the challenges they are faced with if there are not proper resources. We understood and the folks who testified understood that a dollar amount didn't make sense. It really was about making sure that the capacity was there and that there would be principles to the funding within the legislation.

This is important. I could list the very many.... I think almost all of the people testified that this was a key part of the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The advice from the legislative clerk is that this amendment is inadmissible as it requires royal recommendation.

(Clause 21 agreed to on division)

(On clause 22)

On clause 22, we have NDP-24.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Again, this is an important one that talks about clarifying jurisdiction in the event of a dispute regarding conflict among federal and provincial and indigenous nations' law. This is very important, and again, we had many supporters of this during the testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The interpretation of this amendment is that it is indeed inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

(Clause 22 agreed to on division)

(Clause 23 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 24)

On clause 24, we have NDP-25.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I move this motion. It speaks for itself.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 24 agreed to on division)

(On clause 25)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on NDP-26.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I move this amendment. “Reasonable” is not clearly defined and will have to be fought in the court system. It just doesn't make sense, so we're hoping this amendment will be supported.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 25 agreed to on division)

(On clause 26)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on NDP-27.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I move this amendment, understanding and recognizing that, as we move forward in the world of reconciliation, we acknowledge that the language of the indigenous community group or people should be honoured. We're asking not only to have both official languages but that of the indigenous community be represented in the Canada Gazette.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The manners in which the law will be made accessible will be assessed by each indigenous group. Some groups will want their laws made accessible by the minister, but others will not want to have their laws published in the Canada Gazette. A similar memo was proposed in the context of Bill C-91 on indigenous languages, and such a memo was not supported. We will not be supporting that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 26 agreed to on division)

(On clause 27)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on PV-21.

Ms. May

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This amendment was recommended by the Yellowhead Institute. The current language is permissive. It says the minister may gather information respecting child and family services, and so on. In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls for action, action number 2 called on the federal government to collaborate with the provinces and territories in producing annual reports specifically on the subject matter of this legislation, and producing reports on the number of indigenous children in care compared with non-indigenous children, the reasons for apprehension, total spending on preventative and care services, and the effectiveness of interventions.

My amendment creates a positive duty on the minister to gather information in order for the minister to fulfill the obligations the government has previously said it has committed to delivering, which is the recommendation for calls for action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A simple change from “may” to “must” makes this provision in section 27, the role of the minister, much more effective in meeting the TRC's call to action number 2.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

“May” and “must”, it's a world of a difference.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The federal government will not be providing the services directly to indigenous children. As a result, the minister should not be imposed to gather the information with regard to child and family services being provided in relation to indigenous children. Further discussions need to take place between indigenous groups, the federal and provincial governments, to determine who should gather information and how it should be shared.

Some indigenous groups have already expressed their desire to collect this information. We feel, jurisdictionally, it should be up to them to do so.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 27 agreed to)

(On clause 28)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on IND-6.

Ms. Philpott.

[Jane Philpott, Independent, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

I move this motion as a follow-up to the member of Saanich—Gulf Islands in terms of the importance of responding to the TRC call to action 2, so that we will get the kind of information that's required about how many children are in care and how they're doing.

My amendment includes a number of provisions. One would be that this information-gathering would be performed according to the best practices of established research ethics. The Inuit would like to make sure that when an Inuk child is taken into care there is more detail and that their land claim organization is specified. There's more clarity here on the privacy policy that needs to take place around the gathering of information. It also adds in some of the most important pieces of information that need to be made available, which are the number of placements, the amount of money that's spent and who's spending it on child and family services.

This is taking what is in the bill and expanding it, so that we can actually respond appropriately to call to action 2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])