Evidence of meeting #128 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I was going to ask the witnesses if they could elaborate on the differentiation between what the current 4(b) is and what adding my proposal would mean and if you could describe it.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
In essence, in clause 6, in (a),which other folks have already raised, it does affirm the “inherent right” to “water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure” on first nation lands, as well as water and source water in protection zones if provinces and first nations in Canada agree on an approach to coordinate laws.
In essence, in the purpose of the bill, the proposed amendment would reiterate some of those commitments that are later in the bill in clause 6, under “Purpose”.
Liberal
November 4th, 2024 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Similarly, I'm questioning the protection provision. We've heard from so many witnesses who had similar concerns around it—provinces as well—that I think it deserves at least a definition and very specific language around what that means because its implications could be vast.
If we don't get that right.... We all want to accomplish what this bill sets out to do, but that is concerning, I'd say, for me, being from northern B.C. specifically.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
Next I have Mr. Melillo and then Ms. Idlout.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have a couple of quick questions for the witnesses.
At this point in the bill, would this change have a mechanical or tangible impact or would it be more of a legal principle change, if that makes sense?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
It would be more of a legal principle than a tangible impact.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay. I appreciate that.
Maybe Ms. Idlout could speak to this a bit.
I know there are many amendments and we're going to have a lot of further discussion around protection zones and first nation consent in defining those protection zones. Would there be any concern—I'll just put this out if you want to comment on it, Ms. Idlout—that including protection zones at this point, before we've done that work to include first nation voices...I don't know if “overstepping” is the right word, but is it superseding some of those future amendments, just for discussion...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
I'm going to turn the floor over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you for the clarification. Maybe we need more clarification, because the way I understand NDP-9 it adds further clarity. I like the way Jenica said it. With it being a proposal by the Assembly of First Nations, I do wonder what the whole process was.
I don't know if you guys were part of the process. The way Bill C-61 was explained to us by the Minister of Indigenous Services was that this was co-developed. If this was co-developed, and it was co-developed with the Assembly of First Nations, I'm surprised to see the Assembly of First Nations submitting amendments. I'm wondering if during the co-development process the assembly had submitted these as provisions they wanted included in Bill C-61, but they weren't, so they're hoping to still have them included through the committee stage. I don't know if you can answer that, but it would be helpful to understand that one, first of all.
Also, when we haven't discussed yet any kind of clarity for protection zones, if we do add clarity about what we mean by protection zones, how will that impact subclause 4(b) in adding this?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
On the first question about the years of work with the Assembly of First Nations, and rights holders themselves, we heard a myriad of voices, and you heard many of those at the table. I certainly respect the fact the AFN submitted suggestions in order to improve the bill, and that's what's being deliberated today. As my colleague had mentioned, the language being proposed in NDP-9 is analogous with language found in clause 6. It's very similar. It's affirming it in the “Purpose”, as opposed to in clause 6.
On the second question on protection zones, the committee will speak at length about that. As currently written, the bill speaks about a consultation and co-operation process in order to define that, including with provinces and territories. I think that is clear in the bill. Whether or not that's how it translates in the future is maybe something else. But as written in your amendment, in NDP-9, I would say it affirms some of the language that is found later on and brings it to the “Purpose” section. It does come from language that we've heard from many partners through the consultation process, so I would acknowledge that as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the list I have Mr. Schmale.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I still want to continue this discussion about defining it, adding these terms and not actually defining it.
We've seen in previous pieces of legislation where we did not define certain words there were some issues later on down the road. If we choose not to define this at any point—this could be later on down the path of this legislation—what risks are we running here?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
What risks? Definition brings clarity, absolute clarity in law, which provides a rubric or a boundary over how a protection zone will be applied. The ancillary point to that or the opposite point to that is it does become rigorous.
As you've heard from many witnesses, the fabric and the realities of many first nations vary considerably. The definition for protection zone should potentially respect the geographic and historical differences across this country, including the relationship with provinces and territories. The question is around entrenching in law a definition that does provide clarity. The opposite side of the same coin is the rigidity of that language and the difficulty of changing that language once a bill becomes law.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay. I think, too, during the testimony, based on the differences we heard, would it be fair to also say that unless we define it, it could mean different things to different people?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes. I think it is about aligning laws across multiple jurisdictions. Those laws can cover a variety of things from clean drinking water to sanitation, to quantity, to flow, to fire protections—many of the things that this bill speaks to. It certainly could be applied differently across the country based on the joint agreement between a province territory and a first nation.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay.
I think at some point before he finishes up, we might have to have, as you said earlier, some kind of direction in which way we're going, or this could be very problematic. We could define it before we finish this whole process or have some guards where the minister would have to consult, or something like that.
Again, I think if we're leaving this based on what you just said, which to me is pretty serious, I do have concerns about not actually defining these key pieces that actually bring everything together in this whole bill that we're calling Bill C-61. I think that's a big risk, given the fact that we don't have a definition, and it means something else to somebody else. I think we might be doing a disservice if we don't work out this clarity with definitions before the end of it. I'm not saying we do it right now. We saw here in this committee where definitions were not provided in other pieces of legislation, which made everything very interesting and was problematic for certain groups. I think we should definitely think about this before we get through this whole thing.
Again, the fact is that we don't have the definitions. I know Ms. Idlout was saying it does allow clarity, but at the same time, if we start adding in amendments like this without definitions, I think we open ourselves up—and the Crown itself—to potential issues down the road, which doesn't actually solve anything that we're trying to do.
I will leave it at that until I hear other questioners and maybe add some more.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Schmale.
On the speaking list I have Ms. Idlout, then Ms. Atwin, then Mr. Melillo.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
I forget what the processes are for parking the vote until we get to protection zones.
While you're thinking about what the answer will be, I do want to say again what I've said about this bill since we started studying it, and that is just to remind all parliamentarians that we got to this state of Bill C-61 because of what was stolen from first nations.
What was stolen from first nations is their authority and jurisdiction to manage and use their right of water through colonialism, through the Indian Act, through all these other pieces of legislation. Bill C-61, as we understand it, is one form of reconciliation where there's an attempt to give back that jurisdiction to first nations. To limit giving that jurisdiction back is just another form of injustice for first nations.
I hope that you consider, with this draft amendment, that in strengthening this bill you're strengthening reconciliation with first nations. For too long, we all know, all past governments have not done enough to invest in their infrastructure; but we also want to make sure that we're creating legislation that respects their authority, that respects their rights, so that we are doing the best we can to give back the jurisdiction that originally belonged to them, as whole as possible, and not in small parts here and there, including protection zones.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I agree with Ms. Idlout. It's really about stating clearly that first nations have that law-making authority, as they always should have had, and so that further assurance, I think, is really what our partners want to see.
I certainly hear the concerns from Mr. Schmale about the definitions. I know we'll get to the definitions clause as a committee as well. I think that, with a vote, we could probably move on from this one. I'd rather not stand it. I'd rather keep going, if possible.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree. It's up to Ms. Idlout, of course, if she wants to park it. I don't think it needs to be parked, necessarily. I think we can move forward from this.
Not to take away from what Mr. Schmale said—I agree with much of his sentiment—I would urge caution in the discussion. Obviously, there are a lot of amendments dealing with protection zones. I think it's important that we have a fulsome discussion about that at the appropriate time. I also think it's very important that we as a committee understand our role. In my opinion, it should be to ensure that first nation voices, provincial and territorial voices, can be heard, and that there is free, prior and informed consent by first nations, for example. I think that it's not necessarily time to get too rigid on that aspect of it.
I'll end it there. I think we got a little bit deeper than just this amendment in our discussion, but I'm also happy to move this along to a vote if Ms. Idlout's agreeable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
Maybe some of the discussions we're having at this point will make the discussion a little more streamlined as we get further along in the bill.
I'm not seeing any more interventions at this point. Maybe we can move it to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're moving to NDP-10. If it's moved, NDP-11 cannot be moved as it's identical.
Would someone like to move NDP-10.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I have a quick procedural question while I have the floor. When are we going to end our committee? Do I need to move to adjourn or something?