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.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
However, it is very offensive the way you said it and how you said it in just not giving her the credit she deserves.
Now, I'm not done yet. I also want to clarify. When I go across Canada and into my riding about indigenous groups and the concerns, we have organizations that don't necessarily deal with child welfare legislation and they're making decisions. There are huge concerns about that.
I do find it very offensive the way you've described Dr. Cindy Blackstock.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, I'd like to clarify. I'm not trying to be offensive towards Dr. Blackstock at all. I have respect for Dr. Blackstock, but she's not the only voice, and that's the voice that has been expressed many times at the table as being representative.
I'm saying that there are many communities that came into co-developing this legislation for the express purpose of ensuring that indigenous communities define what is in their best interests—not the federal government. That's all that was meant by it. I meant no disrespect whatsoever to Dr. Blackstock. I'm just saying that if we're going to keep referring to that, then let's also please remember that there were a great number of other indigenous communities that went into helping to define this legislation in the first place.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I'm so sorry. Pardon me, MP Blaney. This is twice now that I've had to interrupt you on a procedural matter that was my mistake.
As noted by the legislative clerk, if PV-13 is moved, NDP-12 cannot be moved, as they are identical.
Would you like to clarify that, Clerk?
9:55 a.m.
The Clerk
PV-13 is identical to your amendment. The committee has already decided once on the amendment, so there's no need to move it twice because the committee cannot pronounce itself twice on the same question.
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Well, then, I'll take this opportunity just to remind this space that “co-development” was certainly not what we heard repeatedly from the witnesses, so it's unfortunate that it is being used as if it were true.
(Clause 14 agreed to on division)
(On clause 15)
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I've had a request that after clause 15 we suspend for 10 minutes, which we will do.
We do have amendments for clause 15, so let's get down to work.
We have Green Party amendment number 14.
10 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Just as a comment on where we're disagreeing, many amendments coming from opposition parties are looking at creating more of a positive duty on behalf of the federal government to ensure that there is protection for children and that they not be subjected to removal because of, for instance, socio-economic situations, and that there actually be more of a responsibility on the part of the federal government.
I understand what I'm hearing from my friends on the other side, which is that, well, this is a framework and all those other things can be determined. I guess philosophically where it comes down for me is that the framework is still there and the negotiations of agreements can still happen, but this gives us a chance to create a clear legislative direction to the federal government that there's a positive duty to ensure that socio-economic inequalities not lead to children being placed in situations that are unequal, unfair and amount to maltreatment, particularly in terms of removal of children from families because of socio-economic conditions, including poverty, lack of adequate housing and so on.
Rather than read out my whole amendment, which is a lengthy one, I just provide that summary. This is again in the interest of creating language that says this legislation is to ensure that those inequalities not lead to removal of children.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I notice that we have three amendments on this particular clause. I know that we're dealing with PV-14, but of course we look at it in the context of all three amendments, knowing that if one passes.... We will be voting against it, but we do believe that there is some language around this particular clause that can be approved, and we see that in other amendments.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
For reasons already stated, we will not be supporting this amendment.
10 a.m.
Independent
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
Yes, I wanted to speak to this amendment because my amendment following is very similar, and I'm afraid that if it gets voted down I won't be given an opportunity.
Again, I just want to implore colleagues to consider what happens in reality, which is that a child is taken from its family, and the reason given is that the family doesn't have enough money or doesn't have an adequate house. Then somehow we manage to find hundreds of dollars per day, adding up to thousands of dollars per month, to go to a non-indigenous foster family to care for that child. It seems absurd to me that we would take a child away because of socio-economic challenges the family has, but that somehow we can magically—we or the provinces—find enough money to put thousands of dollars into the hands of non-indigenous families to pay for that child.
We have a chance right here at this table to be able to say that is wrong. You cannot take a child away from its family because of poverty. Poverty is not neglect. Poverty is not within people's control. We have a chance, right now, to be able to say that positive measures have to be taken to remediate the inadequate housing, to remediate the economic opportunities and to make sure, for goodness' sake, that the Canada child benefit gets into the hands of the indigenous family, and not into the hands of the province never to see that family benefit.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I would like to ask the legislative clerk about the sequencing. I know the language is not identical, so I believe that, if this one is voted down, we will still have the opportunity to debate the following two. Is that correct?
10 a.m.
The Clerk
If PV-14 is adopted, you will not be able to deal with the two others. but if it's defeated, then we will go to IND-5. Also, if IND-5 is adopted, the same principle will apply, and NDP-13 will fall.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
I want to read what's in clause 15, on socio-economic conditions:
the child must not be apprehended solely on the basis of his or her socio-economic conditions, including poverty, lack of adequate housing or infrastructure or the state of health of his or her parent or the care provider
I would argue that the words in the amendments are substantially already in the bill. Also, we have heard several indigenous organizations, including the Manitoba Metis Federation, speak in more detail in support of this particular clause.
That's all I wanted to put on the record.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Again, this is one of these changes that need to happen because the poverty in indigenous communities is sometimes overwhelming. As a person who spent multiple years living on a reserve, being part of it, and whose home was a foster home to keep children in that community who were sometimes taken specifically due to poverty....That may not be what was in the report, but that was the outcome of it.
This really engages the federal government to take leadership and say that there is something bigger happening here. Rather than removing the child, what do we need to do better as a federal government and as the people who are responsible for looking at the process of funding, at housing criteria, and so on?
Again, I'm going to say it. The framework must be strong. If the framework is not strong, then it continues to do what has happened in this country since it started, which is put the onus on the people who are struggling the most. This is an opportunity to take that and say that we are part of the strategy, and we owe it because we created the problem in the first place.
I encourage the members on the other side to consider that.