Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'd like to call the meeting to order and thank everybody for attending.

We have very important work to do today. We are going to go through a very significant bill related to child and family services.

We are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. It is part of the initial process of understanding the truth of Canada's history and moving toward reconciliation. I am privileged to be a resident on Treaty 1 and the homeland of the Métis people.

As is customary, are there any objections to moving the definitions and the preamble to the end? I see none, thank you.

I believe I've asked for printed copies be circulated.

Since we have no amendments in clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, shall clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 carry?

(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 7)

We have a proposed amendment on clause 7.

Mrs. McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, we heard through the committee hearings that the degree of discussion with the provinces and territories was anywhere from minimal to, in some cases, non-existent.

This Liberal government prides itself in saying it is collaborative, that it's going to work in collaboration and build relationships. I believe all the provinces probably exceed the standards or are equivalent, but to take a piece of legislation and impose it on the provinces in an area of their constitutional jurisdiction is sort of.... It should have had agreement and sign-off by the provinces, as we also heard from some constitutional lawyers.

The amendment to clause 7 is meant to respect the provinces and territories. This government has work to do in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Bossio.

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

Based on what we heard during the co-development of this bill, the proposed legislation was meant to be binding on the provinces and territories. To proceed with such an amendment would reduce the impact of the bill, as its principles and provisions would not be applied by provincial and territorial service providers.

We do not recommend supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have a brief comment further to that notion that this is somehow trenching on provincial jurisdiction. It's very clear, and we've seen multiple academic journals and received testimony to the effect that it is fully within federal jurisdiction. To suggest otherwise would necessarily be suggesting that the indigenous peoples of Canada don't have these rights. That's not only incorrect, but bordering on offensive.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Vandal, you are passing.

MP McLeod.

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

I take exception to that comment.

When you perhaps have someone who is living off reserve in Toronto, or another urban setting where the communities have not assumed responsibility, you have a provincial system that has responsibility under our Constitution.

This is not offensive. This is strictly about ensuring you have had that conversation with the provinces and territories. You talk about co-development. Co-development should have included the provinces and the territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Chair, I would agree with the last statement.

We heard from the Saskatoon Tribal Council, off reserve, where there are issues in my city of Saskatoon. There are issues in Manitoba. There are issues in Saskatchewan and Ontario.

I just want it on the record that there are issues off reserve, and this is why this statement is important.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

On clause 8, we have an amendment LIB-1.

MP Bossio.

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

There were many requests made for Canada to incorporate, as a purpose to the bill, a reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We've heard that call and would recommend adding a third purpose to the bill, which would seek to clarify that the bill aims at contributing to the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We will be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

If this amendment is adopted, then NDP-2 and Independent-1 cannot be moved. The concept of UNDRIP is already covered by the LIB-1 amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We have PV-5.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize that I need to put this on the record. I'm here because of a motion passed by this committee. I continue to object to its terms. It deprives me of my rights that I have under our process and procedures of Parliament.

Absent your motion, I would have the right to present this amendment at report stage, which would mean that I could be at one committee at a time. That's as opposed to yesterday, as an example, where there were two committees going through clause-by-clause at the same time, and I had amendments that I presented at both. It's an onerous provision, and I wish you hadn't passed that motion.

I'm here somewhat under duress, but I seize the only opportunity I will have to put forward these amendments.

This amendment was recommended on the advice of Cindy Blackstock and others. We want to change and improve the description of the purpose of the legislation.

The goal of the amendment is to ensure that the legislative purpose is acknowledged to:

(c) prevent, as much as possible, the removal of Indigenous children from their communities; and

(d) establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, equitable, sustainable and long-term funding for Indigenous groups, communities and peoples to enable them to exercise their legislative authority in relation to child and family services and to provide services that are comparable in quality to those offered to non-Indigenous children, while taking into account their unique cultural, social, economic, geographic and historical needs and circumstances.

What this is clearly attempting to do, I believe, is absolutely consistent with the intent of the legislation overall. It makes it clear that the purpose of the legislation is to respond to issues like the sixties scoop to make sure that sort of thing doesn't ever happen again, and that child and family services in indigenous communities have, as a purpose under this legislation, avoiding removing indigenous children from their communities.

I hope we can receive your support to improve the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

I feel that it's premature to determine what funding methodologies would be required for indigenous groups to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services. More discussions in funding need to take place with indigenous groups, provinces and territories in order to assess the funding needs of communities, as well as to identify the proper funding methodologies.

Funding requirements for each community will vary, depending on the child and family services model they wish to adopt, along with their distinct needs and priorities.

We do have an amendment later on, LIB-4, that's being proposed and that seeks to flag the importance of discussing fiscal arrangements in the context of coordination agreements in relation to the provision of child and family services by indigenous groups, services that would be sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality. If adopted, this amendment would be incorporated at clause 20.

That's what we'll be shooting to do later on. Therefore, we won't be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP McLeod.

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

We are prepared to support this particular amendment. I think it adds some valuable increased definition. I don't see the one line regarding funding as being prescriptive. I just see it as saying that it needs to be added to the framework.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Blaney.

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

The NDP will be supporting this amendment.

I just want to draw the attention of the Liberals at this table to how much testimony we received on this very issue. We will be proposing more amendments.

The core issue is the resources and the acknowledgement of the need for those resources. I would hate for this to be a hollow bill. I hope that we see a tone in this place where we are really addressing the key issue, which is resources for those communities directly.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 9)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're now at clause 9. We have numerous amendments.

The first amendment received is IND-2.

Would you like to move your amendment and then give a brief opening comment?

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

Yes, thank you.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. It was received on the basis of feedback that I heard from indigenous peoples: that they want it to refer not to “a child's well-being is often promoted when”, but to “a child's best interests are often promoted when”. This is because the concept of best interests is a concept that I heard repeatedly, particularly from first nations with regard to the highest goal that they were seeking. It was more inclusive of considering cultural continuity, and we certainly heard that cultural continuity is something that is at risk when children are taken from their homes. I think that it would not take much to change that to say that it is a child's best interests that we are seeking.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

To change this paragraph of the bill as suggested would reduce the scope of this affirmation: “a child's well-being is often promoted when the child resides with members of his or her family and the culture of the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs is respected”.

The current version of the bill refers to “a child's well-being” instead of “a child's best interests”. Referring to “a child's well-being” is broader in scope than “a child's best interests”.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mrs. McLeod.