Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 1458
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This amendment falls at line 15 on page 10, and is part of an effort to ensure that the inherent right to jurisdiction over child and family services includes the authority to confer decision-making powers to independent indigenous bodies or to judges empowered to decide similar matters under provincial legislation.
This was part of the recommendation by Justice Sébastien Grammond in the article “Federal Legislation on Indigenous Child Welfare in Canada”, which I'm sure all of you have reviewed.
I hope this amendment would be well-received because I think it does a substantial amount to prepare the ground to ensure that indigenous decision-making governs child and family services, which is the goal of the government, as we've heard throughout this committee hearing. The inherent right to jurisdiction being acknowledged in this legislation, at this point, in this clause, would move us substantially in that direction.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 18 agreed to)
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20)
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This is to add regulations to prescribed measures for the negotiation of coordination agreements. This is to open up the scope for regulations that will help with the negotiation of coordination agreements. I think it works particularly well with Jane Philpott's amendments to section 32, which are also coming up, so that we can detail the aspects of the coordination agreements and the negotiations process that could be regulated by order in council, by the Governor in Council.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I don't see it as an expansion. We know that the bill's focus is going to be on ensuring that there are negotiated agreements. In moving forward in negotiated agreements, you may in fact need to have regulations. If you don't have the empowering section here in the legislation for such regulations, you'll have to go back and amend the act later to be able to bring in regulations that may be needed.
I'm afraid I can't point to testimony. It just seems to me that a way of ensuring the bill can function well in the future is to have the authority to bring in regulations if you need them. If you don't need them, you never need to have this section, but if you do need regulations in relation to coordination of the different agreements that are being negotiated, you won't have that power.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Am I allowed to ask the officials a question?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
If my amendment is accepted, I don't see any downside to having that as a further fleshing out of the ways in which we might be wanting to use the regulatory powers in section 32 by providing some additional guidance around that. From the point of view of officials, is there anything negative that occurs as a result of this amendment?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just for clarity, if you look at section 32, we are talking only about regulations in the context of any matter that may be provided for in regulations made under section 32, so I don't see how that expands the scope. I'm sorry. I just wanted to bring it back to that section, because the way we've drafted it is to say “in the regulations made under section 32”.
Anyway, I think we don't have support for it, but this wasn't an attempt to expand the scope but to make sure we have the regulation powers when we need them.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This again goes back to an effort I have been consistently making to ensure that the legislation includes the concept of the right of a child to live free of maltreatment. I have already cited the various witnesses who made this point: Carrier Sekani Family Services, Dr. Cindy Blackstock.
The amendment inserts the language around:
safety, security and well-being of Indigenous children at risk of, or experiencing, maltreatment;
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you.
This comes from evidence, and the brief from the Chiefs of Ontario:
It is helpful that s. 20(5) anticipates the need for “dispute resolution mechanism”[s], to be developed in the regulations.
It is odd, though that it requires, as a precondition for accessing ADR, that all three parties to the negotiations have already made “reasonable efforts”. This seems counterintuitive, since the failure of one or more parties to make reasonable efforts is exactly what may drive the need for dispute resolution.
If you look at the existing text of the legislation 20(5), the section in the brief the Chiefs of Ontario were referencing starts with:
If the Indigenous governing body, the Minister and the government of each of those provinces make reasonable efforts to enter into a coordination agreement but do not enter into a coordination agreement, a dispute resolution mechanism provided for by the regulations made under section 32 may be used to promote entering into a coordination agreement.
The effect of my motion is to have a very straightforward section that simply says:
a dispute resolution mechanism provided for by the regulations made under section 32 may be used to promote entering into a coordination agreement.
It removes the precondition of failure after best efforts, as recommended by the Chiefs of Ontario. I know the way this was drafted had good intentions, but you really have an unintended consequence that an alternative dispute resolution is outside the reach of people who need it most, if any one of the three bodies hasn't yet made good, reasonable efforts, and hasn't yet reached a point of failure. You need an alternative dispute resolution at exactly that moment, to get things to work. It may be outside of your reach.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This amendment was recommended by the Yellowhead Institute. The current language is permissive. It says the minister may gather information respecting child and family services, and so on. In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls for action, action number 2 called on the federal government to collaborate with the provinces and territories in producing annual reports specifically on the subject matter of this legislation, and producing reports on the number of indigenous children in care compared with non-indigenous children, the reasons for apprehension, total spending on preventative and care services, and the effectiveness of interventions.
My amendment creates a positive duty on the minister to gather information in order for the minister to fulfill the obligations the government has previously said it has committed to delivering, which is the recommendation for calls for action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. A simple change from “may” to “must” makes this provision in section 27, the role of the minister, much more effective in meeting the TRC's call to action number 2.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
There are a number of witnesses whose evidence went into the formulation of this amendment. We have spoken briefly in the rubric of another one of my amendments about section 32 and the regulation-making powers.
The current legislation states:
If affected Indigenous governing bodies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate in the policy development leading to the making of the regulations, the Governor in Council may make regulations
It was pointed out by a number of Justice Dawson's references to significant cases, particularly in terms of the Mikisew Cree case and the Haida Nation case, that meaningful consultation is more than a process of exchanging information. The language in the current draft, “If affected indigenous governing bodies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate”, is quite different than meaningful consultation, particularly given the jurisprudence around that language and what it conveys.
My amendments replace the existing subclause 32(1) with a positive duty on the minister to ensure that there is meaningful consultation with affected indigenous governing bodies in policy development leading to the making of these regulations. Then, of course, it ties it back into the Constitution Act and ensures that there's scope for provincial governments collaborating within their own areas of jurisdiction.
I think it strengthens the regulation-making powers, and it certainly ensures that discussions or “opportunity to collaborate” language, which is pretty flimsy, are replaced with significant meaningful consultation within the context of existing court decisions and our Constitution.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This was withdrawn so it shouldn't be popping up now. We emailed the committee on May 15 to withdraw it, because the one we just went through, which was rejected, was more to the point.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
This is the preamble. Of course, the preamble is helpful. It's not the operative part of the bill, but future courts will have reference to the preamble for determining—
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Oh, we're back in definitions. I'm sorry; I thought we were following in order and doing definitions last.
This definition as currently found in the definition section says, “child and family services means services to support children and families, including prevention services, early intervention services and child protection services.” The amendment I'm proposing is based on recommendations from Dr. Blackstock and Carrier Sekani Family Services to say that it means services to protect children from maltreatment, to assist families in safely caring for their children, including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention services, etc. It strengthens the definition of what child and family services means, to be beyond supporting families and children and to be about primarily protecting children and assisting families.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (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.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (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])
Results: 31 - 45 of 1458 | Page: 3 of 98

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

For more data options, please see Open Data