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.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
This is moved. This goes back to the reality that if Canada wants to see equality for indigenous children, then it is important that necessary increases in funding continue to happen.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 31 agreed to on division)
(On clause 32)
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Clause 32 has several amendments.
The first is Green Party amendment 22.
11:30 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
There are a number of witnesses whose evidence went into the formulation of this amendment. We have spoken briefly in the rubric of another one of my amendments about section 32 and the regulation-making powers.
The current legislation states:
If affected Indigenous governing bodies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate in the policy development leading to the making of the regulations, the Governor in Council may make regulations
It was pointed out by a number of Justice Dawson's references to significant cases, particularly in terms of the Mikisew Cree case and the Haida Nation case, that meaningful consultation is more than a process of exchanging information. The language in the current draft, “If affected indigenous governing bodies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate”, is quite different than meaningful consultation, particularly given the jurisprudence around that language and what it conveys.
My amendments replace the existing subclause 32(1) with a positive duty on the minister to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with affected indigenous governing bodies in policy development leading to the making of these regulations. Then, of course, it ties it back into the Constitution Act and ensures that there's scope for provincial governments collaborating within their own areas of jurisdiction.
I think it strengthens the regulation-making powers, and it certainly ensures that discussions or “opportunity to collaborate” language, which is pretty flimsy, are replaced with significant meaningful consultation within the context of existing court decisions and our Constitution.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
The notion of consultation has been defined by the courts and should not be specifically defined in this bill. Incorporating such a reference to the term “consultation” could modify the understanding of this term and would have broader implications than this bill only.
As a result, we will not be supporting this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:30 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This was withdrawn so it shouldn't be popping up now. We emailed the committee on May 15 to withdraw it, because the one we just went through, which was rejected, was more to the point.
11:35 a.m.
Independent
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
I move this amendment. It follows along on the issues raised by my colleague, the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands, about the need to ensure that these regulations will in fact be put into place and that this will support the implementation of the bill. I have heard what officials have said before about the fact that regulatory-making provisions are already in the bill, but the problem that will arise is that one may be forced to return and amend the bill because the provisions already there are interpreted as being too narrow. This gives us an opportunity to broaden the regulatory-making ability, including such things as the procedures for consultations and what that will look like.
I would argue that this is where we will be able to see the bill have its effect and not be simply a piece of legislation that's passed without having an impact. I urge further clarity around the obligations on regulations, through this amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:35 a.m.
Independent
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
You'll see, as I move this motion, that I'm quite determined to try to find ways to make sure that regulations are actually done. One of the parts of this amendment speaks to a review of what's taken place on amendments every three years and that the minister must, in collaboration with indigenous governing bodies, review regulations to make sure they're adequate and sufficient. One of the provisions says that the Governor in Council must make at least one regulation. They only have to do one, but they have to do a regulation within two years. That will have the effect of revving up the system, as soon as the bill is passed and has royal assent, to get partners working together on making sure there are regulations put in place. If we could just make the requirement of one single regulation within the first two years beyond royal assent, I think that would be a great way to ensure that the work gets done.
I know that our wonderful public servants are always good at getting things done when they are written in law. I think if we put this requirement in law, it would be very helpful in terms of making sure the bill is as effective as it could be.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I think this is supportable from certainly our perspective. The argument from the government in the past would be about co-development. I think in this amendment we have created really a very modest expectation but, as articulated, an important one. Certainly we can support this.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 32 agreed to)
(Clause 33 agreed to)
(Clause 34 agreed to)
(Clause 35 agreed to)
(On clause 1)
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
This is the preamble. Of course, the preamble is helpful. It's not the operative part of the bill, but future courts will have reference to the preamble for determining—
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Oh, we're back in definitions. I'm sorry; I thought we were following in order and doing definitions last.
This definition as currently found in the definition section says, “child and family services means services to support children and families, including prevention services, early intervention services and child protection services.” The amendment I'm proposing is based on recommendations from Dr. Blackstock and Carrier Sekani Family Services to say that it means services to protect children from maltreatment, to assist families in safely caring for their children, including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention services, etc. It strengthens the definition of what child and family services means, to be beyond supporting families and children and to be about primarily protecting children and assisting families.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I do, first of all, want to state that the issue of post-majority care, I think, is hugely significant and was talked about. I want to give a quick shout-out to both my riding and the local provincial government, both former and current, in terms of creating a facility where elders and post-majority foster children will live together, but I have continually expressed concerns that it's clear that this bill will be imposed on the provinces without their conversation. I think they recognize this issue also, but I think we are creating another obligation to the provinces that needs to be done in conversation with them, and that it should not be created, as important as it is, without adequate conversation.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I'm happy to move it. I'm interested to hear what the clerk has to say about the definition of “maltreatment”, which is something I think is absolutely important, and which in later clauses was not supported.
I also just want to say that it's very important that definitions be here. They are key to the interpretation of the act, when you look at things like the “parent” not being properly described. We have a definition here, as well, of “prenatal care”. There are some specific things.
How an act is interpreted is very important. If things are left up to other people to define, there can be a lot of problems, so I am waiting to hear what the legislative clerk has to say.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
No, what I would like to know is with the other clause around maltreatment—
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
It has failed, so I just don't know what happens now with the definition, and I'd like to understand better.
