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.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I was certainly hopeful that I wouldn't have to vote on this one because Jane's would have been passed. I'm sorry that this happened. It's a similar idea of looking at some of the concerns that were brought forward. Here we are again. I understand that this is framework legislation, but the framework has to be strong, or everything that comes within it will not be recognized.
My concern in moving this and many of the amendments is that this legislation, this framework, has to be strong and recognize that, if it isn't strong, it's going to make the indigenous communities not get the support they need; therefore, it's the same rationale. We need to change the language. I look forward to the response.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We agree. This amendment is recommended as it is consistent with the intent of the bill and will allow indigenous groups to receive the necessary information with regard to significant measures being taken about children from their communities. This amendment also clarifies that, in the context of coordination agreements, parties can agree as to the content of this notice.
We will be supporting this amendment.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
No.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Oh, sorry. It was a majority.
(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 13)
We'll go to NDP-11.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Again, this is an important part of moving forward. This is really about making sure we support the communities. We do a little bit of work here, again, making sure that “parent” is plural, looking at how representatives' status in civil proceedings will be reflective of what we heard in the community. There's a lot of support behind this by multiple organizations.
I look forward to hearing the response.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We will not be supporting this amendment, as this amendment would result in the introduction within the bill of a new concept known as “familial provider”. Adding such a concept would bring uncertainty as to what is currently meant by the terms “family” and “care provider” as defined by the bill. Indigenous governing bodies can always designate another person or entity to make representations on their behalf in court. A power of delegation is not needed in this context.
With regard to the participation of children in matters affecting them, the bill speaks to the taking into consideration of the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity. This approach was preferred to an approach based on a specific age, to allow for a more individualized assessment to take place when determining the weight to be given to the child's views and preferences.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 13 agreed to on division)
(On clause 14)
Independent
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
I move this amendment to clause 14. I feel very strongly about this amendment. Every single day in this country, a child is taken from the parent in the hospital at the time of birth. A birth alert is put on the chart; there is no requirement currently for the family to be notified about that and there is no obligation on the care providers to show that they have tried to do something else other than to take that child away.
This would put an onus on the service providers to, first of all, make sure there was advance notice given to the family about a potential removal of a child. They would also be required to say that they had tried other measures: they had looked for an aunt or a grandmother or they had tried to solve the economic challenges that the family was facing.
This, in itself, would absolutely save lives. This would prevent children from being apprehended. I put it to my colleagues—find it in your hearts to support this amendment.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Once again, the bill itself is not meant to create a detailed child and family services regime, which could be left to indigenous groups to create. The necessity to establish procedural rules such as the one suggested should be determined by indigenous groups and not by the federal government. Until that time, provincial standards will continue to apply. Imposing a delay of 24 hours before an apprehension can occur may be too long in some instances while it may be too short in some others. Situations should be assessed on a case-by-case basis when it comes to determining when an apprehension can occur.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I do want to acknowledge and recognize that this is a really important measure. As for where my concern is, it's on the issue I've expressed before in terms of provincial jurisdiction. I think that if we had tripartite agreements...those should be in place. I think that would be in the best interests of the child. Certainly, as this legislation is enacted, I hope those tripartite agreements go into place and that this is a key element within them.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Chair, I'm just going to say parenthetically that so many of these amendments that some of us in this corner feel very strongly about came to us from indigenous communities that were asking us to bring them forward. It's particularly sad to see that last defeat.
This amendment is similarly related to prenatal service and the unborn in looking at the extent to which a voluntary prenatal service is consistent with what's likely to be in the best interests of the child after the child is born. This service should be provided to an indigenous mother with concern for a child not yet born. It asks for a voluntary prenatal service that's consistent with the best interests of the child to be incorporated into the legislation as proposed, as part of clause 14.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I have to disagree with the member—not disagree—I have to say that this legislation was co-developed with indigenous communities as well, with the express purpose of establishing it as a framework for indigenous peoples to define for themselves once and for all what is in the best interests of their community and their children within that community.
Yes, you have some individuals who have opposed it, but it was co-developed with indigenous communities in the first place, so I take exception to the comment that keeps coming back that Cindy Blackstock defines and speaks for all indigenous communities, but in a sense, that's what seems to be happening at the table. I'm sorry, but this was co-developed to be a framework for the express purpose of ensuring that indigenous communities once and for all define what is in their best interests.
Thank you.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Thank you.
I take offence at MP Bossio's comment on Dr. Cindy Blackstock. She is one of the persons in the—
