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.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I, too, want to acknowledge Mr. Morrice for being here and thank him for that.
Obviously, it's a very important amendment. I actually agree with Ms. Atwin. I don't know why I sounded surprised about that, but I do agree. G-1 is simpler and more straightforward from my perspective. I would be more inclined to not adopt the next few here and go toward G-1.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I have a question for the expert.
What is the difference between PV-1 and G-1? Can you explain this, please?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Essentially, both would recognize a human right to safe drinking water on first nations land. They are very similar in their scope and their outcome. I would say there's very little difference.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank very much, Ms. Idlout.
Are there any other interventions before we move to a vote?
Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll quickly ask a question of our witnesses as well.
Obviously, there's a desire for the sentiment of this. I'm curious if you have thoughts about how this would be upheld as a human right.
I think there are certain challenges, frankly, that could come with it. Obviously, there are labour issues and training issues in terms of water plants. I think there are a lot of things that, in reality, could make it much more difficult than simply affirming it as a human right. That's one thing.
I'm curious if you have thoughts about how that would happen in terms of ensuring that it is actually upheld.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
There is some uncertainty now about the scope of the human right to safe drinking water in first nation lands. If it were challenged, in terms of the right, we think it would likely be left to the courts to decide. There's the potential for a judicial review, for example, of a decision that seems contrary to the human right to safe drinking water.
I would note one difference, which is that later amendments refer to this right recognized within the scope of the act. The idea is that courts or decision-makers would look to the act to determine how that right is to be fulfilled. Some of the elements of that are, for example, the minister's requirement to make best efforts to ensure safe drinking water on first nation lands.
Those types of provisions and the provisions dealing with funding would all inform the human right to safe drinking water, at least in terms of the government amendment. That's not as clear in this amendment here before us.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm going to ask this question in English, because I don't know how to ask it Inuktitut.
I also noticed the difference between Bill C-61 and G-1, though, in that when I read Bill C-61, I appreciate it more because it refers to international law and Canada's obligations according to international law.
I wonder what weight that gives to Canada for recognizing the human right to water because of the international obligations it owes.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The international law would inform Canada's recognition of the human right to water if that were to occur. I would say that neither of these would directly import into domestic law the international human right to water. It's an international law. Canada has an obligation to progressively realize the right to safe drinking water for all Canadians.
These provisions, particularly the government amendment, would be targeted at trying to realize that right and strengthen that right.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I have a follow-up question.
Canada will actually look better if we pass PV-1 because of international law. Are we trying to show that we want to help implement the obligations given through international law?
Nelson Barbosa Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I'm not sure about the term “look better”. I think maybe the nuance is that the entrenching of a domestic right compels Canada towards a duty, in this case to provide access to clean and safe drinking water.
The domestic law proposed in say, amendment G-1, clarifies that duty in a crisp way. The inference around the international law is less binding in terms of its compelling nature on the duty to provide access to clean and safe drinking water in first nations land.
I would say that one is more of an international recognition of Canada's commitment in the international space. The other is entrenching a domestic law that compels Canada to essentially provide duty.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Does that mean realistically that PV-1 and G-1 are two very different amendments that can both be passed?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
In my mind, and I would turn to Doug as well, I think they would be competing. They do both speak to entrenching a duty.
I would just say that particularly in an act that has been reviewed carefully by many first nations people, including witnesses who have come to this committee, clarity of language is abundantly important. If the intent of these clauses, which seem to overlap a little bit, is to entrench a domestic law, I think the objective would be to have the utmost clarity of what that law compels Canada to do.
Doug, do you want to add to that?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, I agree with that.
The government amendment is also a recognition of that right and of how important the Government of Canada and Parliament feel this is.
The government amendment tends to be a little stronger than this one is in some respects. I think the main reason for this is that there is a reference to the other obligations in the act. It's “in accordance with this Act,” whereas PV-1 doesn't mention the act itself.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm sorry.
The last part of G-1 says, “in accordance with this Act”. Does that not limit the human right through this act?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The right is “on First Nations land”. That is one of the limitations. However, “in accordance with this Act” will be what directs people to look at the act in order to give life to that human right recognized in the act.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
If we were to amend G-1 to say, “in accordance with this Act”, would that human right still be generated?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The current G-1 recognizes the human right to safe drinking water. It is a right for which people can look to the courts. Again, we're not exactly certain about the scope and what a court might say in that context. That's because Canada has not recognized a human right anywhere. Quebec is one exception. They have limited recognition.
It is a bit of a new concept, so the scope is unknown.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the speaking list I have Mr. Morrice.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to call out a few points for the committee.
The first is that PV-1 stands on its own with the reference to the UN General Assembly resolution within those commas. The sentence that it is hereby recognized and affirmed that “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” works. There is also that reference to international law. I think that's something important for the committee to note.
Should the committee wish to pursue G-1, I would encourage members to consider an amendment to G-1, which currently says, “It is recognized that it is a human right”, without the word “affirm”.
I will turn to the witnesses with a question.
Would it not be stronger language to “recognize and affirm” a thing as true, rather than just “recognize” it as true?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, I think you could use both “recognize” and “affirm”.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
The question I was hearing from Lori was about which would be the stronger language. I appreciate that clarity from the witnesses.
If the committee pursues G-1, we could consider adding “affirm” to that language.
While I have the floor, I will add that “in accordance with this Act” seems to limit that right, should the act be seen as insufficient. I think the committee could also consider, when it gets to G-1, whether that strengthens it without the additional language.
Thank you, Chair.