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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Let's go to a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)
With that, we are moving to new clause 6.1 and NDP-17.
Ms. Idlout, I'll hand the floor over to you.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you.
This was given to me by the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. It was trying to make clear that the law would have to be applied and be binding on His Majesty the King and the provinces.
Liberal
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Similar to the last amendment, would the government have this authority?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
In relation to a court of a province, the answer is no.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
There's a little bit there to wonder. I want to throw this out there, because I get the spirit of what's trying to be achieved. It doesn't seem like there's a will among the committee to move this forward as is.
Would it be more simplified, if you simply removed the province?
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I know. I'm looking at you, because you're sitting adjacent to me. I want to get a feel from the room on that. If the desire is to vote it down, I would also be okay with that.
I'm going to stop talking. Thank you.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I think the intentions are clear, but I'm still curious. Maybe it's just a personal curiosity, but I was wondering what it would add to the responsibilities of His Majesty in right of Canada if it were quoted as such in this bill.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
If it's His Majesty in right of Canada, that is what this act is affirmed to do. If it is His Majesty in right of Canada or a province, that would be a jurisdictional quandary.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you.
I was heckled a lot during my intervention. I want to make sure that all members understand there shouldn't be any crosstalk during committee proceedings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo. I'm not sure it was a point of order, but in any event, let's go to a vote.
Shall NDP-17 carry? We'll have a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 7 agreed to on division)
(On clause 8)
That brings us, colleagues, to clause 8.
BQ-5 is the next amendment that we have up. I understand that new language for BQ-5 has been circulated.
Dear colleagues, you received a hard copy of the new version of amendment BQ‑5, and you also received it by email.
I'll give the floor to Mr. Lemire to present this new version if he wishes.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed, to avoid line conflicts, we're proposing to incorporate elements of amendment NDP‑19 that we find interesting. It's a bit of a mix of BQ‑5 and NDP‑19 that we're proposing in the new version of BQ‑5.
Essentially, the purpose of the motion is to be consistent with the testimony heard at this committee on clause 8 of Bill C‑61.
Do you want me to give you some time to read it? You have the hard copy. That's fine.
We want to ensure that the status quo applies to the St. Lawrence Seaway, among other things, and that the parties involved apply the consultation mechanisms provided for and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but we want to avoid the conclusion.
In terms of incorporating elements of NDP‑19, there really needs to be a reference to the government taking steps to consult and work with first nations. Recent agreements can cause harm to the fishing industry, whether in British Columbia, Quebec or the Maritimes. For first nations, fishing is a fundamental right, but it's being denied in many situations. In the circumstances, I find it interesting or important that this aspect be included in the bill. This is mainly because some communities weren’t consulted on Bill C‑61, or didn't see the final version that was presented to Parliament. We want this bill to be limited to the acts cited in the amendment that's being proposed here.
In short, here is the new version of amendment BQ‑5. I can read it, but I think you've already read it anyway.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire. I think all committee members received the new version of amendment BQ‑5.
BQ-5 has been moved. I'll just inform members that if BQ-5 is adopted, NDP-19 cannot be moved because of a line conflict.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire, for your explanations.
Is there any debate on the new version of amendment BQ‑5?
I have Ms. Idlout and then Mr. Schmale.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I would like to ask the expert witnesses this regarding the BQ-5 amendment and NDP-19: How different are they? Which one has more strength? From my understanding or from my thoughts, the subamendment, if it were to be added to NDP-19, would it be the same?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The existing clause 8 refers to a number of federal statutes that are not in BQ-5. BQ-5 would take out the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Canada Marine Act, and the Canada Shipping Act. Those were included because there is a national interest to ensure that not just first nations laws, but also provincial laws, don't affect shipping and so on. The idea is that federal laws would be paramount over all provincial laws, first nations laws and so on. That is the first significant part of BQ-5.
In reference to NDP-19, it would introduce a new element of consultation and co-operation into this. Right now, it's a very strict statement saying these federal laws are, in effect, paramount over any other laws that might conflict. Introducing NDP-19 would mean that the federal government has to consult and co-operate with first nations before that limitation could come into effect. It basically changes a strict paramountcy clause into a more conditional paramountcy clause, whereby the federal government must first make these consultation efforts and then the clause could potentially kick in.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Can I have a supplemental question?
Regarding BQ-5, would it touch on the federal government's jurisdiction? For example, if the Canadian Navigable Waters Act were to be taken out, what would the effect be?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
The effect would be that, if a first nations law was enacted, for example, by a coastal first nation that somehow affected shipping, and that first nations law conflicted with the federal navigable waters protection act, for example, you could have a situation where it's not clear whose act is to prevail. The first nation might say its act should prevail because it's in its jurisdiction in its coastal waters.
The idea of the federal paramountcy here is to ensure that there's a rule to address a conflict in that sort of situation.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
If I understood it correctly, with NDP-19, there's a bit of a difference in that first nations laws would have more strength, if it were to be added to BQ-5.
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
NDP-19 wouldn't necessarily give more strength to those first nations laws, but it would introduce a new step. The Government of Canada would have to consult and co-operate in relation to this paramountcy clause. Right now, it's a very strict statement saying which laws are paramount. There would be a more conditional stage before that.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Okay. I think my question was misunderstood, so I'll ask it in English.
On the subamendment, which adds NDP-19.... I appreciate that attempt to incorporate language from NDP-19 into your subamendment. I am still concerned about the original BQ-5.
What would the impacts on the federal jurisdiction be if some of those acts were removed?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
If the bill passes, first nations can make laws on drinking water, and those laws can coexist with federal laws, but if there were a conflict with a federal law, then that federal law would take precedence, essentially. Right now, if the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, for example, were taken out, a first nation law could potentially govern some aspect of navigation, whereas, right now, the bill ensures that there is a rule, basically, in this provision that says that, if the laws conflict, the federal law would prevail.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Let's go to the vote. Will BQ-5 carry?