Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2019

[The Clerk]

If this amendment were to be adopted, it would create an inconsistency in the bill, because you would have a term that would be defined, but not used, in the bill. That would create an inconsistency and, therefore, that makes the amendment inadmissible.

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

Thank you.

I understand that my amendment is reflective also of the “child and family services” definition, which was just voted down, but it also includes definitions of “parent” and “prenatal care”. Maybe we'll just hear what Mike has to say. He will tell us how the government's going to move.

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

I'm not going to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

It introduces a new word. Although I don't have a note saying it's specifically impossible to move, I have a sense that it's going to fail, but we can have a vote on it.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on CPC-1.

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

I'd like to move this motion. This amendment would add the term “customary adoption” into the “family” definition. We heard this on several occasions and this would add the words “customary adoption practices” into that line 20.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Bossio.

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

This could be supported. “Customary adoptive parents” were already captured by the definition of family, but it could be a good idea to refer more specifically to them in this definition, so we are in support of this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have PV-2.

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

I can anticipate the clerk is going to say there is a problem, because as many of my amendments that have now been defeated attempted to use the word “maltreatment” I also proposed to amend the definition section so the word “maltreatment” would be defined.

I'm going to stop there and say that since every attempt to insert the word “maltreatment” has been defeated, it is likely not going to be acceptable to insert the word “maltreatment” now in the definitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That would definitely cause a problem.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are at PV-3.

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

Again, this may have the same fate because I'm attempting here to provide a definition of “meaningful consultation”. I've made other attempts in other amendments to ensure that we remove words like “collaborate”, “enter into conversation”, whatever it was and use the legal term required by our Constitution, “meaningful consultation”, so that definition is likely also to be unacceptable at this point because “meaningful consultation” isn't used in the legislation.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have PV-4.

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

This definition is to add the words “parent”, “prenatal” and “substantive equality” into the definition as found. You can see it in my amendment that amends the bill, after line 36 on page 3, and provides a definition of “substantive equality”. Now this is a term used in the legislation and I would hope that we could provide this definition.

Again, this was provided by Dr. Cindy Blackstock, whose work on substantive equality and Jordan's principle.... She is acknowledged as a leading expert. I'm sure she would agree that she doesn't speak for all first nations people.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

(On the preamble)

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

What happened to amendment PV-9? I have a note, “only admissible if PV-9 was adopted”.

It was not, so MP May, on amendment PV-24.

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

This is part of the reference in the preamble to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision in the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society. The Government of Canada will affirm that decision as part of the preamble of this legislation. Of course, that was Dr. Cindy Blackstock's organization's ongoing efforts to ensure that indigenous children received substantially equal treatment to non-indigenous children.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I am sorry, MP May, it's inadmissible.

MP May, on amendment PV-25.

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

In this amendment, it's important to include the word “exclusive”. The current legislation just says “right of self-government...includes jurisdiction”, so by replacing just that one word it would be “right of self-government, which includes exclusive jurisdiction”, which is also a recommendation from Dr. Blackstock.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

: We have Conservative amendment 6.

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

I'll move that one.

This one and the one that comes up subsequently—I think it's my number 7—for both of them, insert the word parents so it's "needs of indigenous elders, parents, youth, children”, that their needs all be established in this as well, because children belong to their parents. I felt that was overlooked in this.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Next we have PV-26. It's only admissible if PV-9 is adopted, so it's inadmissible.

PV-27 is also inadmissible. It's only admissible if PV-9 is adopted.

Conservative amendment 7 is a substantive change to the preamble and inadmissible.

PV-28 is a substantive change to the preamble and inadmissible.

Shall the preamble—

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

Madam Chair, before we go to the preamble approval, I have a bunch of preamble amendments that I was interested in having a conversation with the committee about putting some of these in.

When Arlen Dumas was here, he talked about his “bring the children back” bill they had drafted, and he was quite disappointed it has not been adopted.

I had a chance to look that over as it was submitted here, and I found a bunch of things in there that were pretty interesting. With the indulgence of the committee, I would love to have a bit of a discussion about inputting some of those concepts into them. I wouldn't expect us to chose them all.

I understand this is a little unprecedented.

I'd like to read what I've prepared here. I have distributed some copies.

I'm not exactly sure where we should put all of these, and some of them could be amendments within—

Thanks for indulging me, Chair. I'll take this as making up for all those short minutes you've given me along the way here.

I would love to have in there a recognition that the administration of child and family services is an inherent use of force. I think that's an important piece that isn't necessarily recognized here so when people are administering child and family services, they recognize that.

I'd also like the Government of Canada to recognize that parents are the reason that children exist. It's obvious, but I'd like it clearly stated there.

I'd also like the government to recognize that they should protect children for their families and not from their families. I think it would be nice to have that explicitly stated in there.

This one comes right from Arlen Dumas' bill, that the Government of Canada recognize that the Creator gave indigenous people the ability and responsibility to sustain human life through their children.

Finally, that the Government of Canada recognize that the holistic responsibility of a child's day-to-day well-being is the responsibility of parents or customary caregivers.

If we could put some of these concepts into the preamble, that would be much appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The chair has been consistent in allowing the mover to make a few comments, even when they're inadmissible, which these are.

It was a good pitch.

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

Could I ask why they are inadmissible?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

They are substantive changes.

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

How do I appeal this decision?