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
That may be a question to ask the officials.
We might be able to turn the floor over to Mr. Fairbairn.
Douglas Fairbairn Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
I would say they're not connected. There is a provision later on that deals with non-derogation, but this would be strictly with respect to the definition of whether it's indigenous peoples or first nations peoples.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I think it differentiates between indigenous rights and first nation rights. The bill is specifically focusing on affirming rights on first nation land, so I think it just reiterates that it's the federal government that's deciding who is considered a first nation under the act, and we want to make sure that communities themselves have that ability to determine who is and who isn't. It's up to them.
I think it's about maintaining the flexibility around that definition, creating space for first nation communities to have that definition for themselves. We'd like to co-develop with those communities, which is I think enshrined within the bill itself. We certainly understand why it's there, but it's about, for me, creating new definitions of first nations on first nations. It's additional layers. I think it's actually limiting to indigenous communities for determining their own identity.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I want to answer the question. I've maybe not made it clear. Maybe our advisers can better answer this.
In Bill C-61, when you read “indigenous peoples” there are three distinctions. There's Inuit, first nations and Métis. We're all under the indigenous umbrella. I'm just trying to make it clear that this is pertaining to first nations. It doesn't include Inuit, and it doesn't include Métis people.
Liberal
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To Ms. Idlout's point, obviously this act is pertaining directly to first nations. Perhaps it's a question for our witnesses. I'm wondering whether there was a specific purpose in using the terminology “indigenous people” instead of “first nations”. It seems to me that, in the context of this bill, it would make more sense to use the term “first nations” because what we're specifically discussing is first nations clean water. Was there any specific reason that “indigenous people” was used in this clause versus “first nations”?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The Constitution refers to “aboriginal peoples of Canada” and includes “Indian”, which is the term used in the Constitution, “Métis and Inuit”. It was meant to be, essentially, an inclusive term to reflect the Constitution through the change from “indigenous” versus “aboriginal”.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Would this change have any tangible impact in terms of changing the substance of the bill? I'll just leave the question at that.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
I think that, in the context of this bill, it should not affect other pieces of legislation. For example, it's referring to an element of what's in the Constitution, but it's not trying to limit the rest of the term.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Are there any other members who want to make an intervention?
If not, I'm going to call the vote on this one.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Maybe I'm out of turn, but I don't know. I'd ask the committee. Do we feel we need to have a recorded vote on each of these? I think it might take some time. We're trying to get this through. I would suggest it might make more sense to.... I mean, obviously, if there's a contentious issue, that would be different.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Let's call a vote on this one. We can determine whether we need to do that later, but we're calling a vote on this one.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
With that, we are moving on.
PV-1 is deemed moved, pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on December 15, 2021. Since PV-1 has been moved, BQ-2 and NDP-7 cannot be moved, as they are identical. Also, PV-1, NDP-8 and G-1 seek to introduce similar concepts.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have a quick question.
As this is an Indigenous Services Canada file, as opposed to a Crown-Indigenous Relations file, I'm wondering whether there's a reason that I went first, as opposed to Ms. Atwin, in terms of the vote. She's guiding the ship on this. I'm looking to her for her moving forward. If the order is alphabetical, it should start with her name, but if there's a reason we're starting with me first, I'd like to know that.
It would simplify things if Jenica went first as opposed to me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thanks for the the intervention, Mr. Battiste.
My understanding is that it is done alphabetically, but because there were substitutions, it was done based on the original standing members of the committee.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
What does that mean moving forward? A usually comes before B.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Going forward, we will start with Ms. Atwin.
With that, I was just about to hand the floor to Mr. Morrice to speak to PV-1.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to start by sharing that all of the amendments I brought forward to the committee on Bill C-61, including this one, come directly from the testimony we heard from the Six Nations of the Grand River. I'm really glad to see that both the Bloc and the NDP have put forward the same amendment.
I'll read out the amendment for the committee. It adds to clause 3, which is the rights section of the bill. It reads:
(3) It is hereby recognized and affirmed that, in accordance with the principle established by Resolution 64/292 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on July 28, 2010, which recognized access to clean and safe drinking water as a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights, all members of all First Nations residing on First Nation lands are entitled to have accessible drinking water that poses no risks to their health or well-being.
What we heard very clearly from Chief Hill and in correspondence with Six Nations directly is that, in their view, if this bill does not declare the provision of water as a human right, the health and well-being of their on-reserve community members will continue to be negatively impacted. To them, it's self-evident. By putting this forward, I strongly agree that no person, plant or animal can survive without water. It seems like a really critical addition to ensure that this committee enshrines in this bill the very clear human right to water that is not already included.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.
Looking at the speaking list, I have Ms. Atwin first.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Morrice, for being with us today and putting forward this incredibly important amendment. I think you'll notice from the package that there's definite alignment. We absolutely support the human right to water. We've heard from witnesses, as well, how this has impacted communities for decades.
The only issue for me is the expansion of the language. We want to make sure that it actually leads to stronger protections for first nations. We really want a simplified focus, which you'll see in G-1.
I won't be supporting this in its current form because I prefer the language in G-1. I think it's stronger as far as the legal terminology is concerned, and it's simpler for those who might be reading the bill and for its application.
I won't be supporting this piece, but you'll see in G-1 that we absolutely want to support the human right to water.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.
Next on the speaking list I have Mr. Melillo.
