MP May.
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.
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.
9:35 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Well, I just want to push it a little bit. I find it hard to imagine that this language—that is to protect, promote and restore the well-being in accordance with principles of the best interests of child, cultural continuity, substantive equality—could possibly constrain the exercise of indigenous jurisdiction. It's to guide the federal jurisdiction in implementing the legislation to ensure that we really are focused on the needs of indigenous children. Obviously, I would love you to change your minds on this, but I don't find that objection to be particularly credible. I don't want to insult you by saying that, but I really can't see how it encroaches on indigenous jurisdiction to say that we want to protect indigenous children in a way that is focused on their particular circumstances and all that we've learned through the development of substantive equality through Jordan's principle.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
No offence taken.
It's a new principle, a new section you're proposing. The primary objective here is to enable indigenous peoples to come up with their own objectives. To establish a primary objective necessarily imposes upon them a particular frame.
I note that a number of the notions that are advanced in the proposed section 11 would engage a conversation between other sections. There are all sorts: cultural continuity, substantive equality, and reasonable access without financial and other barriers. There are a whole series of concepts that have to be interpreted in relation to the other provisions. I think it creates a web of complications, whereas the idea is to keep it as simple and as open as possible. This only introduces complexity.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
The comment I would like to make—and it reflects many of the reasons why we've been opposed to many of the amendments—is the fact that the greatest strength of this bill is that it is a framework. A framework that indigenous people can then define in their own terms, and to move away from the paternalistic view that the federal government should be defining these things and these concepts. It's up to indigenous communities.
The varied approach that needs to be taken across the country by each and every one of those communities is to determine what the best interests of their children are. What I love about this bill is the fact that it is a framework. It provides the full strength of indigenous communities to define these things for themselves.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 11)
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment, like previous amendments that I presented, would ensure that a child has a right to live free of maltreatment.
By the way, years ago, in the previous Parliament, the government of the day used G for a government amendment. It didn't want to give me G for Green, so it gave me PV for Parti vert.
That's why we're currently discussing PV-12.
This amendment incorporates in section 11 the safety, security and well-being of the child. It would, again, ensure the child's right to live free of maltreatment that would jeopardize his or her safety and security. A brief summary and recommendation came from Dr. Cindy Blackstock with the First Nations Child & Family Caring Society.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I have a question for our legislative clerk.
I know we kept the definitions until the end. Where I struggle is with the “chicken and the egg”. If this particular amendment passes, we've introduced the concept of maltreatment without a definition. Could I have your opinion on whether that create challenges legislatively?
9:40 a.m.
The Clerk
I don't know.
The principle would be the following. It's better to amend the bill first and then add a new word in the bill undefined. If the courts want to define the term maltreatment afterwards, it's up to the courts. Rather than having a definition added to the bill and the word not appearing in the bill later on, once we arrive at the definition section, if maltreatment has been added to the bill, you will be able to define it as you wish.
9:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thanks to Cathy for that.
I do have pending, when we get back to definitions, a definition of maltreatment. A lot of this is consistent, of course, with UNDRIP, in the way that we want to tie this bill in with UNDRIP. The right to live free of maltreatment is one of those considerations.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
I appreciate the intent of the amendment here. I think the issue, as far as we see it, is that the removal of the notion of physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being brings us into a space where there's inconsistency with Bill C-78 addressing the Divorce Act, so with a view to ensuring consistency across legislation, I think it would be important not to amend it in this fashion.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I move this again and appreciate the fact that this is still continuing to push forward the idea of moving towards gender neutrality and honouring the testimony that we heard here. I'm excitedly awaiting the response.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
As previously articulated by MP Bossio, this isn't, in our opinion, the venue to engage in this kind of discussion around gender neutrality. That's for another occasion; it would take too long.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Shall clause 11 carry?
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
(On clause 12)
9:40 a.m.
Independent
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
I propose this amendment to clause 12. This and my following two amendments all have to do with the fact that children are often taken from their parents without proper warning to the parents, without proper preventative measures being put in place and without information about what's being done.
This particular amendment in clause 12 has to do with adding some clarity of language so that there's a requirement for the service provider to give information as to exactly what measure is being contemplated for the child, and there would be advance notice of such.
There is also a part of this amendment that speaks to the privacy provisions in here so that there's no personal information about the child in the notice that's given unless it's necessary to convey information about the measure and that there should be a privacy officer to ensure that information is treated in the manner that is respectful. I heard stories of people where their privacy was not protected when children were taken from them. Unfortunately, the privacy of the child and family was not respected.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
We will be supporting this amendment. We see it as adding some positive scope to this particular piece of legislation, especially the language around privacy protection.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
We won't be supporting this amendment. The reason was already stated. Once again, it's not for the federal government to make that determination. It's for indigenous communities to appoint a privacy officer should they determine that it's needed. It's not for the federal government to do so.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])