Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 4th, 2024

[Douglas Fairbairn]

That's right. The Interpretation Act would have a standard non-derogation clause because there are differences in each of the federal statutes. Some of them are worded differently, so it would be a standard provision that would apply to all federal acts, and the existing non-derogation clauses would be repealed in this act and in all other federal acts.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're going to move to clause 4.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Chair, I don't know if this is a point of order, but do we have to formally vote on clause 3 first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Melillo, we already voted on that one before, but because we added the amendments afterwards, we don't vote on it again.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm just keeping you on your toes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Melillo.

(On clause 4)

The first amendment we have is NDP-9.

Ms. Idlout, you have the floor.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairperson.

NDP-9, reference number 13369427, would amend clause 4.

We want this clause amended the way it is written.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Ms. Atwin, I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I think it adds further clarity. That's what we've all been looking for, and partners as well, so we certainly support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

Next is Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm happy I got that on the record.

I definitely understand what NDP-9 is hoping to achieve. I have a question about how it fits with some of the rest of the bill, considering that clause 6 and paragraph 6(1)(b) highlight that first nation laws would be applied based on consultation and co-operation with provinces and territories as well.

I suppose this is a question for the witnesses.

Would NDP-9 contradict that in any way as it's written?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Thank you for the question.

In short, no, it wouldn't contradict.

As the bill is written, the protection zone must be agreed to, as you know, by provinces, territories and willing first nations, so should a protection zone exist, it would be agreed to bilaterally or trilaterally with those partners.

To your question of whether NDP-9 contradicts or undermines provision 6, I would say that it does not.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to mention one point. The Bloc Québécois basically had the same concern at the outset. However, we believe that inherent rights cannot be determined in relation to a zone that can be modified and that can straddle non-first-nations lands.

Therefore, we will be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I have a question for our officials.

Just to clarify here, we're talking about the source water in protection zones. Unless I missed it, do we have a definition of what a protection zone is yet?

[Douglas Fairbairn]

No.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I think I'm landing with Sébastien on this one.

We are making some changes to a section of the bill that we have yet to define in this legislation. I guess it potentially depends on how this plays out with the minister and his or her best efforts, but that's still to be determined as we get through this.

At this point I think we're leaning towards Sébastien here.

What about source water? Have we defined source water yet?

[Douglas Fairbairn]

No.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

We haven't defined source water and we haven't defined protection zones. I think that's a touch concerning. I know that might get defined as we go along here, but especially if we are starting to add it to sections that haven't been defined, I think that's a bit problematic.

At this point, unless we are able to get through this and define it, I think we're going to vote no as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'm wondering where this would go—line 20? If you could, just explain how this strengthens this paragraph, because I'm not really sure it does. I'm trying to figure out how it strengthens it in this, especially in light of the fact that there's no definition.

That's a question for....

Actually, I think I understand. I'm okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.