Skip to main content Start of content

INAN Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

Minutes of Proceedings

42nd Parliament, 1st Session
Meeting 152
Tuesday, May 28, 2019, 8:51 a.m. to 11:58 a.m.
Presiding
Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk, Chair (Liberal)

• Elizabeth May (Green Party)
• Hon. Jane Philpott (Independent)
• Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Independent)
House of Commons
• Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk
 
Library of Parliament
• Olivier Leblanc-Laurendeau, Analyst
• Marlisa Tiedemann, Analyst
Department of Indigenous Services Canada
• Isa Gros-Louis, Director General, Child and Family Services Reform
• Marcus Léonard, Social Policy Researcher, Child and Family Services Reform
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Friday, May 3, 2019, the Committee resumed consideration of Bill C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the Preamble was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 1.

By unanimous consent, Clause 1 was allowed to stand.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carried severally.

On Clause 7,

Cathy McLeod moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 4 with the following:

“7 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Cathy McLeod and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 7 carried on division.

On Clause 8,

Mike Bossio moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 8, be amended by

(a) replacing line 28 on page 4 with the following:

peoples in relation to child and family services;

(b) replacing line 3 on page 5 with the following:

Indigenous children; and

(c) adding after line 3 on page 5 the following:

(c) contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 5 the following:

“(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.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 8, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 9,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 5 with the following:

“(c) a child’s best interests are often promoted when the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 18 to 20 on page 5 with the following:

“child resides with members of the child's family and the culture of the Indigenous groups, communities and peoples to which the child belongs is respected;”

(b) by replacing lines 24 to 26 on page 5 with the following:

“nous groups, communities and peoples to which the child belongs or to the destruction of the culture of those Indigenous groups, communities or peoples; and ”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 31 to 42 on page 5 with the following:

“cordance with the principle of substantive equality, which recognizes that

(a) substantive equality is the achievement of true equality in outcomes by ensuring access, opportunity, accommodation and the provision of services and benefits in a manner and according to standards that take into account any unique needs and circumstances, such as cultural, social, economic and historical disadvantage;

(a.1) achieving substantive equality for members of particular Indigenous groups, communities or peoples requires the implementation of measures that are tailored to respond to the unique causes of their historical disadvantage as well as their geographical and cultural needs and circumstances;

(a.2) while substantive equality seeks to address the inequalities that stem from an individual’s particular circumstances so as to help put them in the same position as others, a comparator group and comparative evidence are not necessary to determine instances where there is a need to pursue the objective of substantive equality;

(a.3) as stated in Jordan's Principle, in order to achieve substantive equality between Indigenous children and any other children it is imperative that Indigenous children and youth receive the public services and products that they need when they need them, irrespective of where they live;

(a.4) while Jordan’s Principle states that a jurisdictional dispute must not result in denial of, or adverse differentiation in respect of, a public service or product that is provided in relation to Indigenous children, a dispute among or between government departments or between governments is not required in order to invoke or apply Jordan’s Principle;

(a.5) the following key values are to be respected to achieve substantive equality in the provision of services and support:

(i) an Indigenous group, community or people is in the best position to make decisions that affect their children, youth, families and communities,

(ii) culture and language are the foundations of health and well-being for Indigenous peoples and approved services and supports must be culturally appropriate,

(iii) the holistic needs of a child must be met, as informed by historical and cultural factors, such as residential schools, intergenerational trauma, colonization, racism and intersectional discrimination, and

(iv) systemic barriers that have resulted from colonialism and systemic discrimination must be eliminated and new barriers must not be allowed to develop;

(a.6) the rights and distinct needs of a child in a protected group are to be considered in order to promote the child’s participation, to the same extent as other children, in the activities of the child’s family or the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;

(b) a child must be allowed to exercise their rights under this Act, including the right to have their views and preferences considered in decisions that affect them, and to be able to do so;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, lines 4 to 6 on page 6 with the following:

“their rights under this Act, including the right to have their views and preferences considered in decisions that affect them, and they must be”

(c) by deleting lines 19 to 23 on page 6.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended

(a) by adding after line 9 on page 6 the following:

“(c.1) the members of a particular Indigenous group, community or people must be able to achieve substantive equality through the implementation of measures that are tailored to respond to the unique causes of their historical disadvantage as well as their historical, geographical and cultural needs and circumstances;”

(b) by adding after line 23 on page 6 the following:

“(f) in order for substantive equality to address the inequalities that stem from a person’s particular circumstances and to put them in the same position as others, a comparator group and comparative evidence are not necessary preconditions to determine the instances where there is a need to pursue the objective of substantive equality.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 23 on page 6.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 6 the following:

“(f) in order to ensure progress in the achievement of substantive equality, measurable outcomes and indicators of well-being must be tracked, including in relation to physical and mental health, emotional strength, psychosocial development, stability, feelings of belonging and literacy in the child’s own language.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 9, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 6 the following:

“(4) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with Jordan’s Principle as defined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and as reflected in the following concepts:

(a) an Indigenous group, community or people is in the best position to make decisions that affect their children, youth, families and communities;

(b) culture and language are the foundations of health and well-being for Indigenous peoples and, as such, approved services and supports must be culturally appropriate;

(c) the holistic needs of a child, as shaped by historical and cultural factors such as residential schools, intergenerational trauma, colonization, racism and intersectional discrimination, must be met;

(d) the elimination of existing and prevention of new systemic barriers that are a result of colonialism and systemic discrimination is required; and

(e) all Indigenous children are entitled to receive the public services and support they need, without any gaps, regardless of where they live and whether or not they have disabilities or discrete short-term issues creating critical needs for health or social support.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.

Clause 9 carried on division.

On Clause 10,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 30 on page 6 with the following:

“10 (1) The best interests of an Indigenous child must be the primary consideration in all actions taken and all decisions made in relation to child and family services provided to that Indigenous child.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 6 with the following:

“case of decisions or actions related to the placement of a child in alternative care,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Mike Bossio moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by

(a) replacing line 34 on page 6 with the following:

“security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.”

(b) replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 7 with the following:

“(d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;”

(c) adding after line 27 on page 7 the following:

“(4) Subsections (1) to (3) are to be construed in relation to an Indigenous child, to the extent that it is possible to do so, in a manner that is consistent with a provision of a law of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 7; NAYS: 1.

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 6 with the following:

“child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child, as determined by and harmonized with Indigenous legal and community standards,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended

(a) by adding after line 2 on page 7 the following:

“(b.1) the child’s right to live free of maltreatment;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, lines 4 to 6 on page 7 with the following:

“with the child’s parent, the child's care provider and any member of the child’s family who plays an important role in the child’s life;”

(c) by deleting lines 7 to 12 on page 7.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 7 the following:

“(f.1) the child’s right to live free of maltreatment;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 7 the following:

“(f.1) the importance for the child of ensuring a continuity of care through the provision of child and family services;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 7 the following:

“(4) If there is a conflict or inconsistency between any of paragraphs (3)(a) to (h) and a provision respecting child and family services that is in a law of an Indigenous group, community or people and that provides for the factors to be considered to determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, the provision that is in the law of the Indigenous group, community or people prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 10, as amended, carried on division.

On new Clause 11.01,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92 be amended by adding before line 28 on page 7 the following new clause:

“Provision of Child and Family Services — Objective

11.01 The primary objective of the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children is to protect, promote and restore their well-being in accordance with the principles of the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality and to facilitate reasonable access to services without financial or other barriers.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 11,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 11, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 7 with the following:

“respect to his or her safety, security and well-being;”

(b) by adding after line 37 on page 7 the following:

“(e) ensures the child’s right to live free of maltreatment that would jeopardize his or her safety or security.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 11, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 7 with the following:

“respect to the child’s safety, security and well-being;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 34 on page 7 with the following:

“(c) allows the child to know the child’s family origins;”

(c) by adding after line 37 on page 7 the following:

“(e) ensures the child’s right to live free of maltreatment.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 11 carried on division.

On Clause 12,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 8 with the following:

“child, the service provider must provide notice of the significant measure being contemplated to the child’s parent and the care provider, as”

(b) by replacing lines 12 to 15 on page 8 with the following:

“(2) The service provider must, to the extent possible, ensure that the notice provided to an Indigenous governing body under subsection (1) does not contain personal information about the child, a member of the child’s family or the care provider other than that which is necessary to convey information about the measure.

(3) Every Indigenous governing body must appoint a privacy officer to receive the notice under subsection (1) and to ensure that all personal information is treated in a manner that complies with applicable laws respecting privacy and the protection of personal information.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:

“child, a member of the child’s family or the care provider, other than information that is necessary to explain the proposed significant measure or that is required by the Indigenous governing body’s coordination agreement.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 12, as amended, carried.

On Clause 13,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 13, be amended

(a) by replacing line 19 on page 8 with the following:

“(a) the child's parents or other familial provider of care for the child, as defined by the Indigenous group, community or people, and the child and family services provider have the”

(b) by replacing line 25 on page 8 with the following:

“tions and delegate that right at their discretion; and

(c) the child, if the child is 12 years of age or older, has the right to make representations and to have party status.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Clause 13 carried on division.

On Clause 14,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 8 the following:

“(1.1) A health care facility, health care provider or social worker must demonstrate that services that promote preventive care have been provided to support the child’s family and to serve the best interests of the child before any action can be taken to remove the child from its family.

(1.2) Within 24 hours after receiving documentation that could lead to an intervention by the service provider, a health care facility, health care provider or social worker must notify the child’s family and the service provider must not proceed with any intervention unless he or she can demonstrate that preventive care measures to prevent the removal of the child from his or her family have been explored and exhausted.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 37 on page 8 with the following:

“(2) To the extent that providing a voluntary prenatal service is consistent with what will likely be in the best interests of an Indigenous child after the child is born, that service should be provided.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.

Clause 14 carried on division.

On Clause 15,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 8 to line 4 on page 9 with the following:

“15 (1) An Indigenous child must not be removed and placed solely on the basis of or as a result of his or her socio-economic conditions, including poverty or lack of adequate housing or infrastructure.

(2) If an Indigenous child is at risk of being placed on this basis, positive measures must be taken to remediate any neglect related to the lack of financial means of the child’s parent or care provider.

(3) Before an Indigenous child is placed, it must be demonstrated that active efforts were made to provide to the child’s family remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the family and that these efforts proved unsuccessful.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 8 to line 4 on page 9 with the following:

“15 (1) An Indigenous child must not be removed from his or her family and placed solely on the basis of or as a result of his or her socio-economic conditions, including poverty or lack of adequate housing or infrastructure.

(2) If an Indigenous child is at risk of being placed on this basis, positive measures must be taken to remediate any neglect related to the lack of financial means of the child’s parent or care provider.”

Debate arose thereon.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “neglect” with the word “conditions”

The question was put on the subamendment of Rachel Blaney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.

The question was put on the amendment, as amended, of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 9 with the following:

“socio-economic conditions, including poverty or lack of adequate housing or infrastructure.

(2) If an Indigenous child is at risk of being placed for reasons set out in subsection (1), the service provider must take positive measures to ensure that the child's parent has the ability to provide adequate care for the child.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 15 carried on division.

At 10:14 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 10:27 a.m., the sitting resumed.

On Clause 16,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 9 the following:

“(1.1) If, when the order of priority set out in subsection (1) is being applied, the child is to placed with a non-Indigenous family member or non-Indigenous adult, the child must be placed within a reasonable travelling distance of their family and community, taking into account the relative distances in rural and remote communities and any directives enacted by the community.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Mike Bossio moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 16, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 9 the following:

“(2.1) The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples relating to adoption when addressing the question of guardianship of minors.”

Debate arose thereon.

William Amos moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the words after “peoples” with the words “such as with regards to customary adoption.”

The question was put on the subamendment of William Amos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

The question was put on the amendment of Mike Bossio, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 16, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) In the context of an Indigenous child who has been removed and placed, there must be a regular reassessment of whether it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed with”

(b) by adding after line 33 on page 9 the following:

“(4) The reassessment provided for in subsection (3) may be conducted at the request of a child’s family member.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 27 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) In the case of an Indigenous child who has been removed from their family and placed in alternative care, there must be regular reassessment of whether it would be in the best interests of the child to be placed with”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 16, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 17,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 17, be amended

(a) by replacing line 34 on page 9 to line 1 on page 10 with the following:

“17 In the case of a child who is removed from their family and placed in alternative care in the context of child and family services and who is not placed with a member of the child’s family in accordance ”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 10 with the following:

“ber of the child’s family are to be promoted.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Clause 17 carried on division.

On New Clause 17.1,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 10 the following new clause:

“17.1 For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 16(1) or 20(1) restricts the ability of an Indigenous group, community or people to exercise its legislative authority in relation to child and family services by placing an Indigenous child with a family that is comprised, in whole or in part, of persons who are not members of the Indigenous group, community or people, as long as the family agrees to promote the child’s culture, language and family origins, to the extent that doing so is consistent with the child’s best interests.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Cathy McLeod moved, — That Bill C-92 be amended by adding after line 5 on page 10 the following new clause:

“Equivalent Provisions

17.1 (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister and if satisfied that there are in force provisions under the laws of a province that are equivalent in effect to any of sections 10 to 17, by order, declare that certain of those sections do not apply within that province.

(2) The Governor in Council may revoke an order made under subsection (1) if satisfied that a provision under the laws of the province is no longer equivalent in effect to the section or sections that are set out in the order or is not being adequately applied.

(3) However, the Governor in Council may revoke the order only if the Minister has given notice of the proposed revocation to the province.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Cathy McLeod and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

On Clause 18,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 10 with the following:

“includes exclusive jurisdiction in relation to child and family ser-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 10 with the following:

“mechanisms and to delegate decision-making authority to independent Indigenous bodies or to judges empowered to decide similar matters under provincial legislation.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 18 carried.

Clause 19 carried.

On Clause 20,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 20 to 26 on page 10 with the following:

“20 (1) An Indigenous group, community or people may exercise its legislative authority in whole or in part in relation to child and family services and, if it intends to do so, the Indigenous governing body acting on behalf of that Indigenous group, community or people must give at least 12 months' notice of its intention to the Minister and the government of each province in which the Indigenous group, community or people is located.”

(b) by replacing line 7 on page 11 with the following:

“safety, security and well-being of Indigenous children at risk of, or experiencing, maltreatment;”

(c) by replacing line 12 on page 11 with the following:

“(d) transitional measures;

(e) the protection of privacy and personal information; and

(f) any other measure related to the ef-”

(d) by adding after line 13 on page 11 the following:

“(2.1) If an Indigenous group, community or people intends to cease exercising its legislative authority in relation to child and family services in whole or in part, the Indigenous governing body acting on behalf of that Indigenous group, community or people must give notice of its intention to the Minister and the government of each province in which the Indigenous group, community or people is located.

(2.2) As soon as feasible after receipt of a notice referred to in subsection (2.1), the Minister, the government of each of the provinces concerned and the Indigenous governing body must conclude a termination agreement that includes a termination date and allows the Indigenous group, community or people to cease exercising its legislative authority in a manner that does not result in any interruption or gaps in the provision of child and family services.

(2.3) On the day after the termination date, subsection 20(1) ceases to apply to the laws of the Indigenous group, community or people.

(2.4) For greater certainty, if an Indigenous group, community or people intends to cease exercising, or ceases to exercise, its legislative authority in relation to child and family services, in whole or in part, that cessation

(a) does not prevent that Indigenous group, community or people from providing notice under subsection 20(1) in the future; and

(b) does not abrogate or derogate from the inherent right of self-government recognized and affirmed in section 18(1) of this Act, or from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. ”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:

“digenous group, community or people is located 12 months before the day on which the proposed law is to come into force.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 11 with the following:

“the legislative authority respecting any matter that may be provided for in regulations made under section 32 as well as, among other things,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 11 with the following:

“safety, security and well-being of Indigenous children at risk of, or experiencing, maltreatment;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

William Amos moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 11 with the following:

“(c) fiscal arrangements, relating to the provision of child and family services by the Indigenous governing body, that are sustainable, needs-based and consistent with the principle of substantive equality in order to secure long-term positive outcomes for Indigenous children, families and communities and to support the capacity of the Indigenous group, community or people to exercise the legislative authority effectively; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of William Amos and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 11 the following:

“(4.1) If two or more Indigenous groups, communities or peoples have entered into an agreement with respect to the provision of child and family services, any Indigenous governing body acting on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that is party to that agreement that undertakes negotiations with a government to enter into a coordination agreement must provide notice of those negotiations to each Indigenous group, community or people that is party to the original agreement.

(4.2) For greater certainty, subsection (4.1) does not prohibit any Indigenous groups, communities or peoples from entering into new agreements with one another with respect to the provision of child and family services.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 4.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 11 with the following:

“(5) A dispute reso-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 7.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 11 with the following:

“not enter into a coordination agreement, an independent dispute reso-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 20, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 21,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 12 the following:

“(2.1) Despite anything in this Act and regardless of whether an Indigenous governing body has entered into a coordination agreement with the Minister, the Minister must fund the full cost associated with the child and family services contemplated by a law referred to in subsection (1) that is in force in a manner that

(a) fulfils the purpose and principles of this Act;

(b) covers the actual costs, including

(i) core and operational costs related to the provision of child and family services, including those associated with governance, travel, corporate legal services and those related to the provision of child and family services, employee wages, benefits and training, emergency services, program development, operation and evaluation, policies and standards, preventive service provision, alternative care, post-majority care, adoption, alternative dispute mechanisms, prenatal care, family reunification, accounting, health and safety requirements, human resource management, quality assurance, janitorial services, security, file management, research, data collection and analysis and management information systems, and

(ii) capital costs, including new capital projects and maintenance and other costs related to vehicles, buildings and other facilities, such as electricity, lighting, ventilation, heating and cooling, water supply, sewage treatment, security, fire protection, snow removal, lawn care and cleaning;

(c) is adjusted to account for inflation, population growth, changes in the needs of children and families and any unexpected community emergency that results in higher numbers of children and families requiring services; and

(d) takes into account the recommendations, if any, respecting what constitutes adequate funding that are contained in the most recent report tabled by the Minister in accordance with section 31.

(2.2) On receiving a written request from an Indigenous governing body, the Minister must provide adequate funding for the development of Indigenous laws and the supporting institutions and services that are required to enable the Indigenous governing body to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to child and family services in a manner that is consistent with the purpose and principles of this Act.

(2.3) For greater certainty, the Minister must begin providing the funding contemplated by subsection (2.1) to the Indigenous governing body within a reasonable time and, in any case, not later than the date referred to in subsection 20(4).

(2.4) If a dispute arises with respect to the adequacy or method of funding of child and family services under this Act, the Indigenous governing body may, after exhausting all applicable dispute resolution mechanisms that are provided for in any coordination agreement and regulations made under section 32 and with notice to the Minister, request that the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal established under the Canadian Human Rights Act institute an inquiry into the dispute.”

Debate arose thereon.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

The Chair ruled that the following amendment was consequential to the previous amendment and therefore it was also inadmissible:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 31, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 15 the following:

“(2.1) For greater certainty, the Minister must review the adequacy and methods of the funding provided for under subsections 20(2.1 to (2.3) as well as any coordination agreements that have been entered into.”

Clause 21 carried on division.

On Clause 22,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 22, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 20 to 28 on page 12 with the following:

“22 (1) On the coming into force of a law of an Indigenous group, community or people under subsection 20(1), all federal Acts and regulations respecting the child and family services that are contemplated under that law cease to apply to the members of that Indigenous group, community or people, except as may be expressly provided for under that law or any applicable coordination agreement.”

(b) by replacing line 32 on page 12 to line 2 on page 13 with the following:

“(3) For greater certainty, on the coming into force of a law of an Indigenous group, community or people under subsection 20(1), all provincial laws of general application respecting the child and family services that are contemplated under that law cease to apply to the members of that Indigenous group, community or people, except as may be expressly provided for under that law or any applicable coordination agreement.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.

Clause 22 carried on division.

Clause 23 carried.

On Clause 24,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 24, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 19 on page 13 with the following:

“ties — taking into consideration the child’s habitual residence, age and maturity as well as the child's views and preferences, unless they cannot be ascertained with the exercise of reasonable diligence, and the views and preferences of the child’s parent and the care provider — prevails to the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 24 carried on division.

On Clause 25,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 25, be amended

(a) by replacing line 25 on page 13 with the following:

“(a) within 30 days after receiving a notice under”

(b) by replacing line 32 on page 13 with the following:

“(b) within 30 days after a coordination agreement”

(c) by replacing line 38 on page 13 with the following:

“(c) within 30 days after receiving notice that a law”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 25 carried on division.

On Clause 26,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 26, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 14 with the following:

Canada Gazette in both official languages as well as in the language of that Indigenous group, community or people.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 26 carried on division.

On Clause 27,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 14 with the following:

“27 The Minister must gather information respecting the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.

Clause 27 carried.

On clause 28,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 28, be amended

(a) by replacing line 18 on page 14 with the following:

“28 The Minister may, having regard to established research ethics respecting Indigenous peoples, enter into agreements with a”

(b) by replacing line 26 on page 14 with the following:

“ed in relation to them and that the information collected specify whether each child is a First Nations, an Inuk or a Métis child and, in the case of an Inuk child, specifies his or her affiliated land claim organization;”

(c) by replacing line 29 on page 14 with the following:

“fected families and communities while complying with applicable laws respecting privacy and the protection of personal information;

(d) make progress towards substantive equality against measurable outcomes and indicators of well-being, including physical and mental health, emotional strength, psycho-social development, stability, feelings of belonging and literacy in the child’s own languages; and

(e) determine the total number of placements of Indigenous children compared to non-Indigenous children, the reasons for the placements of Indigenous children and the total amount spent for child and family services on preventive care and care services.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 14 with the following:

“a First Nations person, an Inuk or a Métis person, as the case may be, and that their communities of origin and those of their parents are identified, when possible, when child and family services are provid-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Clause 28, as amended, carried.

Clause 29 carried.

Clause 30 carried.

On New Clause 30.1,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 15 the following new clause:

“30.1 (1) The Minister must establish an advisory committee to advise and assist the Minister on matters concerning child and family services that relate to Indigenous children and to individuals to whom those services are provided.

(2) The mandate of the advisory committee is to

(a) review child and family services matters that the Minister may refer to it;

(b) advise and assist the Minister in his or her role under section 27; and

(c) report to the Minister on the progress on measures taken under this Act.

(3) Within two years after the coming into force of this Act, and every year after that, the advisory committee must prepare and submit a report to the Minister on its activities and findings, the operation of this Act and any other matter that it considers relevant.

(4) The Minister must include the advisory committee’s report in his or her report on the review prepared under section 31.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

On Clause 31,

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

“31 (1) Every three years after the day on which this sec-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 31, be amended

(a) by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

“31 (1) Every three years after the day on which this sec-”

(b) by adding after line 7 on page 15 the following:

“(1.1) When undertaking the review, the Minister must specifically study the adequacy and methods of funding and assess whether the funding has been sufficient to support the needs of Indigenous children and their families.”

Debate arose thereon.

Cathy McLeod moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the words:

“(a) by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

31 (1) Every three years after the day on which this sec-”

The question was put on the subamendment of Cathy McLeod and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

The question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 15 with the following:

“this Act and any necessary increases in funding or changes in funding approaches that the Minister recommends.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Clause 31 carried on division.

On Clause 32,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 32, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 15 with the following:

“32 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations”

(b) by replacing lines 26 to 28 on page 15 with the following:

“(2) The Minister must ensure that there is meaningful consultation with affected Indigenous governing bodies in the policy development leading to the making of the regulations.

(3) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not prevent provincial governments from collaborating in the policy development referred to in that subsection.

(4) If the consultations between the Minister and an affected Indigenous governing body reveal that a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 could be limited by a proposed regulation, the Governor in Council must give serious consideration to accommodation measures, including amending the proposed regulation in light of information received from the affected Indigenous governing body.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 32, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 15 with the following:

“32 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations”

(b) by replacing line 26 on page 15 with the following:

“(2) Every three years after the day on which a regulation is made in respect of funding of the provision of child and family services, the Minister must, in collaboration with affected Indigenous governing bodies, review the regulation to assess whether the funding is adequate and sufficient.

(3) The Governor in Council must make at least one regulation under subsection (1) within the period of two years that begins on the day on which this subsection comes into force.

(4) The Minister must ensure that affected Indigenous governing bodies and other affected Indigenous governments and Indigenous organizations are afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate in the policy development leading to the making of the regulations.

(5) For greater certainty, subsection (4) does not prevent”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Hon. Jane Philpott for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 28 on page 15 with the following:

“32 Following consultations by the Minister with the affected Indigenous governing bodies and with other affected Indigenous governments and Indigenous organizations, where appropriate, in order to take into account their unique circumstances and needs, the Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) respecting procedures for the consultations required under this Act, as well as for the negotiation of agreements under sections 20 and 28;

(b) respecting procedures for dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation or other culturally appropriate services, to facilitate the resolution of any dispute related to

(i) conflicts or inconsistencies between provisions of laws or regulations respecting child and family services under sections 3, 4, 22, 23 and 24,

(ii) the fulfilment by any party of an obligation related to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children under an agreement entered into by the Minister,

(iii) funding provided for the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children,

(iv) the fulfilment of any of the Minister’s obligations under this Act, or

(v) the implementation of any of the government policies and programs related to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children;

(c) specifying the information that is to be included in the report prepared under subsection 31(3); and

(d) generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Hon. Jane Philpott and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Clause 32 carried on division.

Clause 33 carried on division.

Clause 34 carried on division.

Clause 35 carried.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1 previously stood.

On Clause 1,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 3 with the following:

child and family services means services to protect children from maltreatment and to assist families in safely caring for their children, including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention services, child protection services, guardianship, post-majority care and adoption.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Rachel Blaney moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 11 to 13 on page 3 with the following:

child and family services means services to protect children from maltreatment and to support families to safely care for their children, including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, child protection, guardianship, post-majority care, and adoption.”

(b) by adding after line 34 on page 3 the following:

maltreatment includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, harassment and exploitation, psychological abuse, exposure to domestic violence and neglect. (maltraitance)”

(c) by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

parent incudes a person who has custody or guardianship of the child. (parent — mère ou père —)

(d) by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

prenatal care means a service provided to a person prior to their child’s birth that is intended to prevent maltreatment of the child or to promote family well-being. (soins prénatals)”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rachel Blaney and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 3 with the following:

“dance with the customs, traditions or customary adoption practices of that Indigenous”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Arnold Viersen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 3 the following:

maltreatment includes all forms of physical, sexual or psychological abuse, harassment, exploitation, exposure to domestic violence and neglect. (maltraitance)”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 3 the following:

meaningful consultation means dialogue initiated between the Government of Canada and an Indigenous governing body for the purpose of determining the potential impacts of a law or regulation on the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in Clause 1, be amended

(a) by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

substantive equality means true equality in outcomes achieved through equal access, equal opportunity, accommodation and the provision of services and benefits in a manner and according to standards that meet any unique needs and circumstances, such as cultural, social, economic, geographical and historical disadvantage. (égalité réelle)”

(b) by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

parent means a person who has custody or guardianship of the child. (parent — mère ou père —)”

(c) by adding after line 36 on page 3 the following:

prenatal means a voluntary service provided to a parent prior to the child’s birth that is intended to prevent child maltreatment and promote family well-being. (prénatal)”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 7.

Clause 1 carried on division.

On Preamble,

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas the Government of Canada affirms the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2;”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions."

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 1 with the following:

“right of self-government, which includes exclusive jurisdiction”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 2 with the following:

“needs of Indigenous elders, parents, youth, children, per-”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 2 with the following:

“to implement the full definition of Jordan’s Principle as set out by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, including the need to ensure that there are no gaps in the services that are provided to Indigenous children, whether they”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions."

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended

(a) by replacing line 8 on page 2 with the following:

“ensure that there are no gaps or adverse differentiation in the services”

(b) by replacing line 11 on page 2 with the following:

“to promote healthy families and communities and thereby eliminate the over-representation of Indigenous”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 2 with the following:

“digenous parents and peoples to support the dignity and well-”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 39 on page 2 with the following:

“And whereas the Government of Canada recognizes its legal obligation to ensure adequate and stable funding for child, youth and family services that are needs-based and consistent with the principles of the best interests of the child and of substantive equality;”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

Arnold Viersen moved, — That Bill C-92, in the preamble, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 2 the following:

“Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the administration of family and child services is inherently the use of force and, in light of the legacy of residential schools, understands the need to move cautiously.

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that parents are the reason children exist.

Whereas the Government of Canada should protect children for their family, not from their families.

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the Creator gave Indigenous people the ability and responsibility to sustain human life through their children.

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that the holistic responsibility of the child's day-to-day well being is the responsibility of a parent(s) or customary caregivers(s).”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the preamble. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 774: “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure uniformity of the English and French versions.”

The Preamble carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-92, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 11:58 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.



Leif-Erik Aune
Clerk of the Committee