Evidence of meeting #130 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 standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate that. I was just using the title of those standards.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.
I now give the floor to Mr. Lemire.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we need to implement the strictest standards, but that has to come with funding.
Doesn't this create more of an obligation for the minister to ensure funding to meet the highest standards? I mean the ones in NDP‑23.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Funding is a provision we'll find later in the bill, including the establishment of a funding framework, which will consider a number of things: operations and maintenance, monitoring, enforcement, governance and actual costs, so regardless of the path chosen by the committee on the amendment and the provision in the bill, the funding framework and the co-operation around it are found in clause 27.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
Seeing no further hands up for debate, let's move to a vote.
Shall NDP-23 carry?
NDP-23 is defeated, so—
Go ahead, Monsieur Lemire.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
It was adopted on division, but we would have voted in favour of the amendment.
Liberal
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
The outcome would be the same whether it was defeated by a vote of 10 to one or nine to two.
I just wanted to express my support for this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Okay. We're going to do a recorded vote so that we have it itemized.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2[See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to the vote on clause 14.
Shall clause 14 carry?
(Clause 14 agreed to on division)
This then takes us to new clause 14.1.
We have amendment NDP-24. I'll open the floor up to a mover.
Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you.
This item was given to us by the Assembly of First Nations. If you say no to this, you will again be saying no to the Assembly of First Nations. I am trying to strengthen standards. For example, first nations have treaty rights, and it's important for their rights to be included. I want to amplify that.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-24 has been moved.
Is there debate on NDP-24?
Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Yes, I'm just wondering.... We've heard of the treaty right to clean drinking water. In most of the treaties that I've taken a look at, there would never have been the contemplation that at some point in our history water wouldn't be readily available. Are there any treaty clauses you're aware of that actually speak to the right to clean drinking water?
I understand completely that it should be an inherent right. It is in article 25 in UNDRIP. Are there specific details about the rights to clean water in a treaty out there?
In the Mi'kmaq treaty, it's not there. I'm wondering if there's a clause in any of the treaties that shows the foresight that people might pollute their water sources and would never be able to have clean drinking water.
Douglas Fairbairn Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
To your question, no, we're not aware of any historic treaties that mention drinking water. There are modern treaties that do have elements of water included in them. This provision seems focused on treaty rights, which are fairly broad, so it might involve modern treaties as well. In those treaties, water is already covered due to negotiation between first nations and the government over the years.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.
Next I have Mr. Schmale and then Ms. Atwin.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
In this amendment is again something I've brought up before. It reads “in a protection zone under the jurisdiction of” first nations.
Since we haven't defined what a protection zone is yet, I decided to look at Kawartha Conservation's website, because I'm from Kawartha Lakes. They haven't defined what a protection zone is either. However, they have listed 22 activities that are regulated in a protection zone. There's still no definition, but they're in a protection zone.
As I understand it, in this legislation, if passed, the minister has some pretty significant power to decide what can or cannot be done in that protection zone. Am I correct?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
It's part of the regulatory process, which includes consultation and development of that regulation, but yes, it's part of the regulations.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I did some more reading here, and some of these activities that are regulated under Kawartha Conservation were developed through the City of Kawartha Lakes. They had a public meeting, etc., and I understand there was a process.
I think, again, when we aren't defining this and taking the time to do so, we are in fact potentially giving some extraordinary power to the minister and officials within that department to create policy and guidelines, and the enforcement of law given to them in part in this piece of legislation might not give impacted individuals, who may not pay attention or have an interest in that area until a certain time, the ability to raise concerns or have input.
In fact, outside this passing, Parliament will not have the ability to vote on these measures in an individual manner as more and more regulations are imposed. We will then have regulations being added that have the power of law and the penalties to go with them, but we're not defining what we're talking about.
This is, to me, very open-ended, while at the same time, regardless of what happens with this legislation, the government can still, through the department, continue to fund water systems, fund training and fund the distribution of parts, and continue to upgrade systems as technology evolves. This is putting into the hands of the minister an extraordinary amount of power that we have not actually defined.
Again, I just keep going back.... We're potentially going to pass a piece of legislation through which, if we don't do the work here and start defining some of this stuff, a minister and the department could start to add restrictions on pieces of land and on water, such that the minister might wake up one day and think, “Well, I want to impose this regulation through the department.” He or she might have a bad day and throw that in, and because we haven't defined it, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
I still think we should be doing the work here, honestly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Schmale.
Next I have Mrs. Atwin, and then Mr. Zimmer.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you.
First, I firmly believe that if we had upheld our treaty responsibilities as a partner in Canada, we wouldn't be in the position we are in right now. I just want to put on the record my deep respect for the treaty relationship.
I do have concerns, though, that this could perhaps be outside the scope of the bill. Would this amendment attempt to create authorities over treaty lands outside of first nation lands as well? Can you just explain the implications of including this piece?
I also want to add that we do want to continue the conversation more broadly about treaty rights to water, which does come in an amendment further down the list.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
Yes, this amendment as currently drafted could be on first nations lands and off of first nations lands as well.
Going back to the protection zone comments, as the bill currently states, it's a two-stage process. The first stage would be the minister doing regulations defining a protection zone in consultation and collaboration with provinces and first nations and other federal ministers. The second stage would be determined by the parties, meaning that first nations, provinces and Canada would all have to agree on how those protection zones were applied in that protection zone.
It is a multi-stage process, but you are correct that this amendment does have implications on first nations lands as well as off first nations lands.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Is it within the scope of our bill, or would it extend further?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
It is unlikely to be within the scope of the bill without provincial agreement.
Liberal
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Kind of going off of what my colleague Mr. Schmale had talked about, once you give that kind of authority to the minister, especially a radical minister....
I'll give you an example. We dealt with caribou closures in my riding. It's related to what we're talking about with protection zones not being defined. The then premier, an NDP premier, was supposed to consult with local individuals in the northeastern part of British Columbia. There were vast consultations done. There were a lot of conversations. There were community meetings. There was feedback.
Can we guess how many recommendations the premier took from those meetings? It was zero.
We had a radical minister go ahead and implement all these closures. One minister's decision affects us even today on moose closures, industrial development and all kinds of implications.
Not defining it in this piece of legislation, as I said last night, really puts this whole bill.... It's going to land in the courts and it's going to be there for a while because we're not defining these kinds of important things. You can bet the provinces will challenge it. We've had first nations testify at our committee that they will be challenging it. If we don't define it clearly, it puts a big bull's eye on this bill to be attacked on multiple fronts.
I understand what the Liberals across the way are trying to do. Again, they had nine years to get water done. It's still not done. This is kind of an excuse: “Hey, guys, this is our excuse. This is in the way of getting water done.”
It was supposed to be done in 2021. Really, they could have gotten it done regardless of this particular bill.
I'll just leave that out there. Thank you.
