Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 269
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
This is an important change to make sure that there's gender neutrality, replacing “his and her” with “the child”. This just clarifies that. It is also to ensure that “peoples” is plural as some children have parents from different communities. We wanted to make sure the language was inclusive.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
As much as I personally agree with gender neutrality, the adoption of gender neutrality in federal legislation consists of a broader discussion that needs to take place outside of the conversation with regard to this bill. At this stage, modifying the bill, as suggested, would require a great amount of time which would lead to the bill not receiving royal assent before the House rises. The proposed approach is consistent with other recent bills, such as Bill C-97, which creates the departments of ISC and CIRNAC, as well as other bills. On this particular amendment, more work needs to be done outside the scope of the bill itself.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm rather disappointed to hear that. This is something that's fairly fundamental to what needs to happen. It's too bad the government isn't willing to take leadership on such an important issue.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
This makes sure that “groups, communities and peoples” are plural, because children, like mine, have parents from different communities.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I move this amendment with the understanding that some children come from two communities, so this is really about making sure the language acknowledges that children often come from more than one indigenous community. We want to recognize and honour that.
View Mike Bossio Profile
Lib. (ON)
In paragraph 9(3)(e), when addressing the principle of substantive equality, the bill does state that:
a jurisdictional dispute must not result in a gap in the child and family services that are provided in relation to Indigenous children.
In paragraph 11(d), it is stipulated that:
Child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that...
(d) promotes substantive equality between the child and other children.
Sorry, this is a substantive amendment, and that's why it's taking me a little while to get through it all.
While some indigenous partners have indicated the need for the inclusion of such reference within the bill, some others have requested that Jordan's principle not be referred to. In the context of Bill C-92, Jordan's principle does not apply to Inuit and Métis. Also, substantive equality is a legal principle guaranteed constitutionally by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by human rights legislation such as the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It is a fact and context specific that requires flexibility instead of a set of statutory definitions. What substantive equality requires will depend on many different circumstances and therefore should not be defined in this bill.
The bill addresses substantive equality in clauses 9 and 11, as has already been stated. Like I said, it goes on quite a bit, but I think that's enough to justify our position that we won't be supporting this amendment.
View Rachel Blaney Profile
NDP (BC)
I just want to point out, and I apologize, because I read the wrong part. I understand now that I made a little bit of a mistake in talking about the rationale to this, but I think it's important that we recognize that the Assembly of First Nations, the Saskatchewan First Nations Family and Community Institute, the Canadian Bar Association and the Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq all brought forward that they supported these kinds of steps being taken. Again, the legislation does not reflect what I would like to see, which is the reflection of the testimony we heard in this place.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
Lib. (MB)
Now we have Green Party amendment 6.
This appears to be—and I see that Ms. May is gone—inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
We have Green Party amendments 7, 8 and 9, but there needs to be a vote on every one. Green Party amendment 7 is deemed moved because it's independent.
MP Viersen.
Philippe Méla
View Philippe Méla Profile
Philippe Méla
2019-05-28 9:15
The committee adopted a routine motion about three and a half years ago for independents, and all amendments proposed by independents are deemed moved. Even though they are not present in the room, their amendments are going to be put to the question.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
This looks like it deletes the whole “best interests of the child” principle, lines 19 to 23. It's an interesting one.
I can't remember what her name is right now, but she talked about the fact that the “best interests of the child” is defined by the Government of Canada and not by indigenous communities, and that's why they would like to be able to define what “best interests of the child” is, and they're worried about this being in this bill.
View Cathy McLeod Profile
CPC (BC)
I perceive that when agreements are being made with the groups that definition will be very much a part of the agreement, so I think to be silent on that issue right now would not be good. I see that there is opportunity, as I indicated, as the agreements are reached between particular nations and the government.
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
This is a simple deletion of five lines that is proposed by the Green Party. That's it, and there is no replacement.
I think it speaks for itself. They're important lines, they should be in there. We heard them from witnesses.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
I just remembered Pam Palmater saying that the scariest words in Canada are, “we're the government and we're here to act in the best interests of the child”. That's all I'm going to say about that.
View MaryAnn Mihychuk Profile
Lib. (MB)
On this amendment, those in favour of Green Party amendment PV-7?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Now we're on PV-8. It is deemed moved.
MP McLeod.
Results: 16 - 30 of 269 | Page: 2 of 18

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data