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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Absolutely, we can briefly suspend here.
That subamendment will be circulated, and then we will continue right after with the list we have here.
We're going to briefly suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Colleagues, I'm going to call this meeting back to order.
At this point, you will have received an email with the text of the subamendment in both English and French.
Mr. Melillo has the floor in moving the subamendment, and I'll turn it back to him.
November 4th, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to move the subamendment to add the words “and affirmed”. I won't take up much time, but I'll read the passage so everyone is on the same page. It would read as follows:
It is recognized and affirmed that it is a human right of every individual on First Nations land to have access to clean and safe drinking water in accordance with this Act.
It's been discussed, so I think I'll leave it there and move it at this point.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Is there anybody who would like to weigh in?
I see Ms. Idlout with her hand up.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I have a quick question for the expert witnesses.
Can they identify the difference if this were to be removed with the definition change? Can they explain if they would still be included?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
That, in accordance with the act, really provides that guideline for implementation. That is the core piece. With that added, there is quite a bit of guidance throughout the bill to implement a human right to safe drinking water. With it removed, it would be more up to the courts and less done in consultation and co-operation with first nations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Is there anybody else who would like to make an intervention?
Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I don't know if this is the right time, Mr. Chair, but since we are studying amendment G‑1 and its components, I would like to come back to clause 43, the coordinating amendment. The clause relates to Bill S‑13.
Will clause 3 of the bill be repealed in its entirety? Would the committee not want to keep it, given that we want to give the bill a more historic, established scope?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Yes. Basically, will clause 43 stand if clause 3 is amended and new clause 3.1 is added?
Since the committee is clearly stating that it wants to enshrine this historic precedent in law, could we preserve clause 3 and perhaps amend section 43 accordingly?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Clause 43 is the coordinating amendment that refers to Bill S-13, which would be an amendment to the Interpretation Act, and that would essentially bring a new non-derogation clause that would apply to all federal statutes. That would replace the existing non-derogation clause in clause 3 of this bill if the Interpretation Act amendment were to pass.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Is it the will of the committee to enshrine in law the precedent established through amendment G‑1 and recognize its historic aspect?
If there is consensus on this and if clause 43 is adopted, we will no longer be creating the precedent we wanted to set.
Is that a problem for the committee?
That's what I'm getting at.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Maybe I can assist from a policy perspective. Clause 43 would only impact the existing 3(1). It wouldn't impact any other clauses that would be added.
Should the committee decide to go forward with that historic opportunity, that would be different from the existing 3(1), and there would be no impacts if Bill S-13 did pass.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
G-1 is subamended according to the text that was circulated. Does anybody want to make an intervention related to G-1 as subamended?
Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Chair, I think it would be helpful to the committee in their discussion around clause 43, if this is 3.1, do we need this to be 3.2 as opposed to 3.1 in order to be consistent with what's being said in clause 43? There continues to be this discussion around the non-derogation clause that is currently 3(1) that we're saying is now 3.1 according to that statement. Is this 3.2 that we just put forward?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Clause 3 is the non-derogation, and 3.1 is what we just amended. Is that correct? Then clause 43, if I'm reading it correctly, refers to section 3. We're okay with just the non-derogation clause being clause 3 but this being 3.1 and with that being different. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'll turn to the officials.
One other thing I'll mention is that, at the end of this process, the legislative counsel will go through all of the numbering as well.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, clause 3.1 is different from 3(1) or 3(2). Even if 3(1) and (2) were repealed, clause 43 would not affect clause 3.1.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Fairbairn.
Are there any other members who would like to weigh in before we move to a vote on G-1 as subamended?
Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I'm sorry, Chair. I don't want to belabour this because I think we got to an understanding here.
Would it be appropriate to ask a question related to clause 43, since it was brought up, or should I hold on to that for now? I'm just wondering because it's fresh in my mind.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Mr. Melillo, if you'd like to ask a question related to that now, that's fine. We will get to that but not for some time.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I hope this doesn't spiral, but because it was brought up, is the intent of clause 43 to remove clause 3 based on it becoming redundant? Is that the idea of why it would be removed?