Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

This would appear to be consistent with some of the testimony, as Mr. Ouellette said. Certainly, we're pleased to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I would agree. There is ample testimony to bring us down this road. However, I see an issue in the inclusion of references to concepts that aren't defined, in bringing in new concepts into the legislation, specifically “guardianship”, “minor”, or “adoption”. I would suggest a subamendment. I'll read that into the record and it could be assessed by members.

“(2.1) The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples, such as with regard to customary adoption.” That is a pared-down version that—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I see it's a friendly amendment.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

It's a friendly amendment, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Viersen, are you objecting to that friendly amendment?

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

I'd like to speak to it.

I actually like this amendment a lot, particularly because it uses the words “customary adoption”.

It was interesting, Robert, that you said we have to recognize customary adoption, and then it didn't say “customary adoption” there. I was going to make that point. I very much like this amendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

It's a friendly amendment, but the friendly amendment has to be in black and white, says our expert.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would you like me to write it down?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Yes, we need a written copy.

MP McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Chair, I just have a point of order.

I noted when we had an independent motion with a word change, there was no requirement for a written copy. I'm wondering if this is a consistent interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

It was one word, and this is a bit more extensive. It's just to make sure that I have the whole subamendment all together.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

It's exactly the same until after the words “Indigenous peoples”.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

It looks like it's done, but I was going to suggest we move on and allow them to provide a written copy and then come back to it if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

A written copy has been provided and the clerk will read it out to all of us.

[The Clerk]

The amendment, once amended, would read as such: “The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples, such as with regard to customary adoption.”

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

Perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mrs. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

To go back to the original concerns expressed by my colleagues regarding introducing concepts that weren't defined, I have a technical question to the clerk.

Have we actually done the same thing here in terms of introducing a new concept that has not been defined?

[The Clerk]

I'm not sure what the question is.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Is it this first time we've used the words “customary adoption”?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In common law, from my research when I was a professor at the University of Manitoba, there is precedent in common law where judges do refer to it, and it is referred to in a few cases. The issue is often judges who are less experienced with indigenous law, especially in child and family law, are not always aware of some of that common law and so it becomes problematic for people then to.... Because there's no reference, they have a reticence or a lack of an ability to approve something, so it takes many court dates and lots of funds on the parts of parents in order to legalize themselves, because there is absolutely no reference.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I see that we have a roomful of experts. Would the committee perhaps like to hear from a person who could clarify whether this changes the scope of our bill? Would that be acceptable? Thank you.

We would ask you to introduce yourselves, please.

[Isa Gros-Louis, Director General, Child and Family Services Reform, Department of Indigenous Services Canada]

I am Isa Gros-Louis. I'm the Director General for Child and Family Services Reform at Indigenous Services Canada.