Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

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

We will not be supporting this amendment because such an amendment to the bill would be in contradiction to the purpose of the bill, which is to establish national principles to help guide the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children.

Making such a change to the bill would also go against the TRC call to action 4, which called for the federal government to enact indigenous child welfare legislation establishing national standards for indigenous child apprehension and custody cases.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on NDP-7.

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

I'm happy to move this.

Again, this is an important part about language and making sure every child in this country, including indigenous children, has a right to live free of maltreatment. This is something we need to look at. Of course, in the definition part we also have another amendment that adds this to it, just for context.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

Once again we will not be supporting this amendment, as this amendment could be seen to be unduly encroaching on the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples over child and family services. The objective of the bill is to have them decide if and how they want to address maltreatment in their regimes. The bill aims at establishing national principles to help guide the provision of child and family services as it relates to indigenous children. It is not meant to create a detailed child and family services regime, which should be left to indigenous groups to create.

The trigger for apprehension, such as maltreatment, should be determined by indigenous groups and not by the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP May.

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

Thank you. I'm jumping in at this point because if this amendment from the NDP is defeated, my next amendment, Green Party 10, would be immediately also defeated. No? Can we still make the argument on the next amendment?

All right, then. In that case, thank you. I take the clerk's advice. I shall wait. Perhaps this amendment will be carried.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

If it does carry, then your amendment would become moot.

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

Yes, but I saw a gathering momentum.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Now we go to the Green Party for amendment 10.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to present this.

This is, as colleagues in the NDP have mentioned as well, that “the child's right to live free of maltreatment” should be incorporated into the legislation. This was in the evidence from many witnesses, but particularly Dr. Blackstock as well as the Carrier Sekani Family Services brief, which pointed out that in the essence of the bill the best interests of the child must include the factor that, in any proceeding, it be considered how we ensure that this child's right to live free of maltreatment is recognized in the application of the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

For the same reasons that we did not support the last amendment, we will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have Conservative amendment 4.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I'll move this amendment.

This would add:

(f.1) the importance for the child of ensuring a continuity of care through the provision of child and family services;

We heard this on numerous occasions. Specifically, it's outlined as a recommendation in the Canadian Bar Association's brief. I think it would be important to definitely put this in there as a piece of the framework, the piece of legislation, to ensure that. This whole piece of legislation is to ensure that children don't fall through the cracks. I think this amendment definitely clears that up. It's probably the most crucial piece for that. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

We will not be supporting this amendment. The objective behind the proposed amendment is already captured within paragraph 10(3)(b) of the bill. This paragraph expresses that when determining the best interests of the child, the following have to be taken into consideration:

the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability;

This language resulted from our extensive engagement sessions held with our partners.

We will not be supporting the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

: Now we're on to amendment NDP-8.

MP Blaney.

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

I'm very pleased to move this motion.

Again, this goes to something that was discussed multiple times during the testimony. It really is important, because it gives individual nations the ability to define best interests of the child themselves but still keeps the framework that was originally there. We have heard multiple times about making sure that the indigenous community has the power to define that, knowing that this has been defined externally to those communities for many years. I just hope that we remember that this was brought forward by the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs and the Chiefs of Ontario. Multiple groups have talked about how important it is that they define the best interest of the child themselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

For reasons already stated previously with regard to other amendments to this clause, we will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Green Party amendment PV-11 proposes adding a new clause 11.01.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is to insert an entirely new clause that would appear just before the existing clause 11. It's, again, in relation to a great deal of evidence we have heard before this committee showing that we really should create a stronger sense that the primary objective of the provision of child and family services in relation to indigenous children must incorporate the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality under Jordan's principle to ensure access without financial barriers.

This has been recommended by, to mention just one witness, the Yellowhead Institute, and using the primary objective clause found in the Canada Health Act as a template has been suggested to us. That's the basis on which this particular amendment has been drafted to try to draw on the Health Act as a template and precedent and on the advice of numerous witnesses to ensure that the provision of child and family services has an overarching primary objective found in this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

We, on this side, don't agree in terms of this creating an encroachment upon the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples to come up with their own objectives. At the end of the day, the purpose of this is to provide that broad framework, but to establish objectives and define them so specifically will ultimately cause more hurdles and constrain the indigenous partners from delivering on their opportunities.