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.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I perceive that when agreements are being made with the groups that definition will be very much a part of the agreement, so I think to be silent on that issue right now would not be good. I see that there is opportunity, as I indicated, as the agreements are reached between particular nations and the government.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I have on the speaking list MP Vandal and then perhaps a closing by MP Viersen.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
This is a simple deletion of five lines that is proposed by the Green Party. That's it, and there is no replacement.
I think it speaks for itself. They're important lines, they should be in there. We heard them from witnesses.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I just remembered Pam Palmater saying that the scariest words in Canada are, “we're the government and we're here to act in the best interests of the child”. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
On this amendment, those in favour of Green Party amendment PV-7?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we're on PV-8. It is deemed moved.
MP McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Again, I will not be supporting this particular amendment. I think they are absolutely critical concepts, but they need to be done in conjunction with the agreements that are made as the services are assumed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Is there further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
PV-9 is deemed moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 9 agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
The NDP have amendment NDP-5. If NDP-5 is adopted, NDP-6 cannot be moved due to the line conflict.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I move it.
This is about changing the language from saying “a primary consideration” to “the primary consideration”, because that is simply what it should be.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Removing the reference to the best interests of the child being the paramount consideration when making decisions or taking actions related to child apprehension could be found inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Bill C-78 amending the Divorce Act.
As a result, we won't be supporting this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I move this amendment.
I want to reiterate something that was said here in this place during the testimony. It looks at the issues of practice, including the word “apprehension”. I will point out again that this is really a dated word. It is not used in B.C. legislation. It is not used in Ontario legislation. It's not used in Nova Scotia.
We need to make sure we do this right. It needs to be replaced with language that is more modern that really supports and works with other legislation across the country. I hope this will be seriously considered.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
The term “apprehension” is still generally used throughout Canada in child and family service matters. To avoid creating any uncertainty that could result from adopting new terminology, it would be recommended that the term “apprehension” be used within Bill C-92.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I am just pointing out again that it's not in Ontario or B.C. legislation. You just have to look at the population of this country to understand that the majority of the language.... It's not in Nova Scotia either.
This is using old-fashioned language. It doesn't make sense.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
This proposed amendment is put forward in response to the comments made by witnesses on the bill so far, which call for the clause on the best interests of the child to be revisited.
If adopted, the amendment aims to make sure that when determining the best interests of an indigenous child, primary consideration is to be given to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as the importance for that child of an ongoing relationship with his or her family and community and preserving the child's connections to his or her culture.
Also, the amended clause would now clarify that clause 10 on the best interests of the child is to be construed, to the extent it is possible to do so, in a manner that is compatible with a provision of an indigenous law.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I have concerns about this, so I will not be supporting it. One of the challenges is that it doesn't allow for the diversity of experience that some indigenous children have, and we need to recognize and honour that in this place. This amendment does not support that, so I will not be supporting the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
I'll move that.
We heard from the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs and from Mr. Morley Watson about the fact that the circumstances of the child should be determined by the inherent indigenous, legal and community standards. I'm trying to clarify who determines what the best interest of the child is in this particular case.
I'm hoping we can adopt this amendment so that the best interests of the child are determined from the perspective of the indigenous community, not by some bureaucrat in Ottawa.