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
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
It's my understanding that G-1 is kind of a historic statement, since the government has never acknowledged the human right to water. This amendment would formally recognize that first nations have a human right to clean and safe drinking water. That is, in itself, recognition by the federal government in Canada, as opposed to our relying on international law. I believe that makes it a stronger statement.
Can you go into a bit of the thinking around why it was important for G-1 to stand on this alone without a reference to international law?
Rebecca Blake Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Absolutely, it would be historic to recognize it in domestic law.
In addition to what my colleague has mentioned, international law can be challenging to create a binding circumstance with, whereas in domestic law, it's up to the federal Parliament to ensure that it's binding, so there is that addition.
I would also just mention a couple of things. One is in relation to the implementation. Going back to another question that was asked about “in accordance with this Act,” it does provide guidance on implementation of that right, so that's one core component. In addition, with regard to all members of first nations versus “every individual”, G-1 is drafted to be inclusive of every individual on first nations lands, so it could be individuals who are not members of a first nation, as well.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I was going to ask specifically about the piece around “in accordance with this Act” for clarification, but you very much did that for me as far as providing guidance on the implementation, so thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Are there any others who would like to make an intervention?
Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the discussion that we've had so far. I don't want to look too far ahead, but I did look too far ahead, to the ending of the bill. I'm thinking of clause 43.
If Bill S-13 receives royal assent, it is my understanding that this clause we were discussing amendments to would be removed completely. Did I read that correctly?
Obviously, we're looking to include this human right in clause 3, but if Bill S-13 receives royal assent, what impact would that have on the human right in Canada?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Were you referring to the non-derogation clause that would be...?
November 4th, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I'm referring to clause 43 at the end of the bill. It mentions that if Bill S-13 receives royal assent, clause 3 of this bill would no longer be in force, if I read it correctly.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm curious from that standpoint.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
It is separate. Clause 43 is specific to the non-derogation of indigenous rights, so this would be beyond indigenous rights and would be a recognition of a human right to safe drinking water.
Conservative
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Exactly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
I see that Ms. Idlout has her hand up.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
If Bill S-13 passes....
The purpose of clause 3 is to outline that there are rights to be upheld because of the Constitution. The two amendments that we've suggested are adding—what's the word? I can't think of it in Inuktitut or English.
The difference between PV-1 and G-1.... When I suggested my own amendment that's very similar, it was because the Blackfoot Confederacy also wanted this clause for them to understand that, if Bill S-13 passes, the removal of clause 3 does not impact their right to water.
The purpose of recognizing that right—whether it's a great, wonderful thing or not, or whether we've made an attempt to enshrine international law into this bill—won't matter anyway if Bill S-13 passes.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
If it passes, it would basically replace clause 3, but it shouldn't affect the reference to the human right to water. That clause would still exist if it were adopted by the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the list I have Ms. Atwin and then Mr. Lemire.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'm just combining all of our thoughts here. I'm looking at G-1 to add the “recognized and affirmed” piece, but then also after that, the reference to international human rights. Then it's kind of all there. If that's the simpler one....
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Okay. How about the “affirmed”? Are you good with adding that piece? Are we almost there?
Conservative
Liberal
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to mention that the Bloc Québécois will support the consensus reached on amendment G‑1.
