Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're now on NDP-28.

MP Blaney.

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

I move this motion. I thank Ms. Philpott for her amendment prior to mine. I continue to be a little sad about where we're going with this bill. It's unfortunate.

This amendment does something similar, but not as powerfully as hers. I wait to see what the response will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

I'm very happy to say that we are in support of this amendment.

In order to better achieve one of the objectives of the bill—which is to keep indigenous children within their communities—it is important that this aggregated data be made available with regard to child and family services provided to indigenous children. For this reason, it is important that the bill specify that there is a need for agreements on data collection to be concluded, which would allow for the gathering of disaggregated data. Mainly, the bill, as suggested, would respond to comments made by witnesses both at the INAN and APPA committee.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

LIB-5 cannot be moved due to line conflict, so that one is out.

(Clause 28 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 29 agreed to)

(Clause 30 agreed to)

We're now on the new clause 30.1 and amendment IND-7.

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

I propose an amendment that would add an additional clause 30.1. The initial desire here was from the cries that I heard from indigenous peoples to create an office of the commissioner of indigenous child well-being or a commissioner of the best interest of the child.

I recognize that that would be out of scope and it's unfortunate that it wasn't included in the bill in the first place.

I think the closest that we would get that would not be deemed out of scope would be to include the requirement for the minister to establish an advisory committee to assist the minister and submit reports to the minister on a regular basis about the implementation of this bill. A national advisory committee on indigenous child welfare already exists, but this would put that advisory committee into legislation and would support making sure that the work of this bill would see follow-through.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

As I stated earlier, C-92 is co-developed with partners and so will its implementation. If the bill is adopted, the discussions will take place with indigenous partners, provinces and territories to determine if there is a need for such an advisory committee and to determine what its role should be. These discussions will take place when the distinctions-based transition governance structures are established to provide recommendations on the implementation of this bill.

We will not be supporting this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 31)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're now on clause 31 and NDP-29.

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

This, again, I am happy to move. It reflects multiple witnesses' testimony that the bill should be reviewed every three years as opposed to, I believe, five. I think it speaks for itself and it was exceptionally supported by the testimony that we heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, there was testimony that talked about three years. Having witnessed legislation with review periods, I also acknowledge that it can be a challenge with the many priorities, although this is absolutely critical.

I do know there is the ability to initiate review processes early if it is necessary, so I think the minister obviously would have the ability, if she was concerned or thought that there was some necessary work that needed to be done in terms of review; but to actually mandate it.... I think if things are going well, then perhaps we're creating some challenges for the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Vandal.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

I was simply going to say that I agree with MP McLeod. Also it could be that three years is too soon to actually do a complete review. There's always the possibility through the minister's office and I think it's also something that should be discussed with indigenous nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

I'd like to call on officials to come up to the table. Could they please come up to answer a question as to whether this is possible?

I think this would actually make more sense, Rather than having a three-year review where you could end up interrupting tripartite negotiations in that review or some other measures, could the department not provide a report on an annual basis on the progress of implementation? It could be made public. That way, we're aware of where things are progressing, how far we've gone and what agreements are happening, so that we're not going to cause any unintended consequences by reviewing things too early. Do you know what I'm saying?

[Isa Gros-Louis]

Absolutely. It would be within the power of the department to decide that we could do a status report on the implementation of this legislation, and to determine if such a report would be on an annual basis, or another period of time.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have amendment Independent-8.

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

The first part of my motion that I move now I gather will not be supported in terms of moving to every three years rather than every five years; but the second part of my amendment I would still like to be considered. It is that when undertaking the review, the minister must specifically study the adequacy and method of funding. This is, again, one of the only tools that we have to get around the issue that was raised most consistently by first nations, Inuit and Métis—the adequacy of funding.

In lieu of the better option of statutory funding, at least this would allow a tool so that we would be able to say that a future government would get the information and there would be a requirement on the minister to report on that.

This is something that I believe is very important and I would seek your support.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, I would move a subamendment that we delete (a), and that we are dealing specifically with (b).

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That basically indicates that when undertaking a review, the minister must specifically study the adequacy and methods of funding.

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We are on NDP-30.

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

I move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Analysis indicates that it's inadmissible as consequential to NDP-23.

We're moving on to NDP-31.