Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Senator Dennis Patterson, would you take another question, please?

Senator D. Patterson: Yes.

Senator R. Patterson: Thank you.

I’m not a lawyer, and I’ve heard a lot of things during the debate on the amendment: proactivity, which is in the consultation and development of legislation, versus discussions around section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which talks about implementation.

Senator Patterson, could you clarify — for this non-lawyer — the following: Does this clause allow us to close the gap between what seems to be upon implementation versus trying to do it in the development phase?

Thank you.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for the question.

This government — and I love to hear the phrase — says, “Nothing about us without us.”

That, by the way, is essentially the provision in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which this government has also adopted. There will be a collaborative approach to developing legislation, especially legislation that impacts Indigenous peoples — like surely firearms legislation does for people who make their living and feed their families by hunting.

I believe that what we are seeing here is an opportunity to prevent problems from happening, like what has happened in the development of this bill and as is illustrated in the need for this amendment. They weren’t consulted in the development of this bill, so let’s make sure they are consulted in the development of the regulations. It’s proactive, it’s positive. It’s not negative. No, you’re not allowed to do anything that will impair our rights.

This process proposed by Senator Boisvenu, which I think includes a broad definition of Indigenous groups — I have to respectfully disagree with Senator Boyer — will ensure that the regulations, just as they were done in 1998, respect and reflect the unique circumstances and needs as is outlined in the amendment by Senator Boisvenu of Indigenous groups, communities and peoples in a proactive, positive way. Not after the fact like, “Well, we overlooked that and we’ll have to go to court, hire lawyers and sue to get our rights recognized.” Let’s do it right in the development of the regulations so we don’t have these ongoing problems and be solving issues by having white-haired judges determining Indigenous rights. Let’s do it with the Indigenous people as proposed in this amendment. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Senator Lankin, I support this bill 100%. What I do want to do is talk about a very distinct and unique intersection of children in Canada, and they are the children of military members. As you know, military bases are federal territory within provincial jurisdiction. Very often, provinces don’t like going on to federal land in order to provide services, and it’s an afterthought.

We also know from repeated studies that we are actually impacting the ability of jets to fly in Cold Lake and ships to sail in Halifax because parents can’t find child care for their families. In all the research that you’ve done, and since you have such an extensive background in this, even though children are the jurisdiction of the provinces, have you seen anywhere in anything that you have read that there will be an acknowledgement of very distinct groups?

While I am not from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I would suggest that RCMP families, where they are often dual-service couples, also struggle with this, and it directly impacts first responders. Have you seen anything?