Evidence of meeting #129 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 idlout.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
That is a good question.
Perhaps I could ask the experts what the meaning of “significantly” is.
There is also the political aspect of it. As I was saying, we need to send a message that positive changes for first nations must be made. That's why we suggested “significantly”, but if there's another interpretation, I'm prepared to put it in, obviously.
Douglas Fairbairn Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes. The first part of the clause refers to ensuring “that laws in relation to water services on First Nation lands, and policies and practices” are implemented.
This “meaningfully recognize” would refer to those laws and policies, so “meaningfully” in this case means that the government must essentially take steps to ensure those laws are adhered to, and it would be done within the spirit of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think that would be the context of “meaningfully”.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
Mr. Shields, I see that you have your hand up as well.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Just to follow up on that, it's very different from what you just said, Mr. Fairbairn. You said “must”, and there's no “must” in that. It says “meaningfully”. That's a very different connotation of “meaningfully” when you use the word “must” there.
If I were to interpret what you said, it says “must implement”, but this says “meaningfully”, which....
November 6th, 2024 / 7:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
In looking at the amendment, the copy I have says, “which must be meaningfully recognized.” Is that the amendment?
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
That's the “must”. The “must” is that you must do it, but what is the definition of “meaningfully”?
If you just left out “meaningfully” and said that we must do it—must implement it—I think it's very clear, but when you put in that adjective, you have now made that fuzzier by putting in the word “meaningfully”.
If you must implement it, implement it. “Must” means you must do it. When you put the word “meaningfully” into it, you've fuzzified this.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
I think it's to give some emphasis. I agree that “must be recognized” just like that would be sufficient, but I think the idea with “meaningfully” is that you're emphasizing the recognition.
Conservative
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, that's right. It means “shall”.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Yes, so what does “meaningfully” have to do with it? Legally, it doesn't have a standing.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Legally, yes, you could go with just “must be recognized” and that would be sufficient.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I'm just trying to make it as clear as possible. By putting in adjectives, you make it fuzzy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.
Does anybody else want to weigh in on this before we get to a vote?
Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Chair, if I could, I'd like to build off the point that I believe my colleague was getting at.
In having the inclusion of this amendment and having it be “meaningfully” recognized and implemented, I suppose the question is this: Does it make any tangible change to the bill? UNDRIP is already mentioned in the bill. It's already law in Canada.
Again, is this more of a principle that we can get behind, or does it actually make a tangible difference in this legislation?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The first part refers to ensuring “that laws in relation to water services” are implemented. I would say that you don't need this extra sentence to give meaning to what the clause already says. It gives some extra emphasis, I suppose, but it wouldn't change the actual meaning, legally.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
I see Ms. Idlout has her hand up.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I have a quick technical question.
I know that, when we want to submit subamendments, they need to be written, especially if we're adding new words. Is that still the same condition if we want to delete words?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
That's a good question, Ms. Idlout.
Ideally, it would still be circulated, because it's not just about what it might be in English. It's also about what that translation might be in French. To be safe, that would be ideal. If members all agree it's not necessary, we don't have to. However, it avoids some potential risks if we go through the process of circulating it in written form first.
Thank you, Ms. Idlout. Unless there are any other colleagues who want to make an intervention, let's go to a vote.
Shall BQ-3 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We will be moving to our next amendment, which is NDP-12.
I'll open the floor to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-12 was requested by the Assembly of First Nations. We discussed this beforehand.
I move this amendment.