Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question. I'm just double-checking my memory in real time.

In essence, the way the framework on funding is drafted is that “the following matters” would be included, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the items in this list are the only matters. Consultation and collaboration with first nations to develop that framework would look at the broader requirements and obligations around the bill.

From my perspective, all the standard provisions would play a part in that to ensure best efforts for adequate and sustainable funding for all first nations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

As a supplementary question, because the proposed subclause 15(2), for example, is asking the minister to take into account current and projected water usage needs, if NDP-25 does not pass, are there other places that specifically talk to projected water usage needs, or are they still going to be covered because of the framework discussions that will need to happen under clause 27?

[Rebecca Blake]

Both would be accurate.

The existing clause 15 does talk about current and projected needs for first nations. As long as that section would pass, it would be included, as well as within the funding framework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

Mr. Battiste is next.

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

I think that taking partisan shots is not helpful for the overall goal of this legislation and ensuring that all parties in this government support it. We're probably going to need unanimous consent to get this to the Senate. If all parties aren't in agreement with this legislation, then it's going to impact first nations communities.

I live in a first nations community. My overall goal is to ensure that we find legislation that all parties can agree with. To say that we're not in support of aboriginal and treaty rights, when they're in the purpose, to say we're not in agreement with UNDRIP, when it's in the purpose, or to say that we don't agree with the human right when it's already been voted on by this committee in a historic fashion is just inaccurate.

In terms of this specific clause, we do support the cultural and spiritual needs as applied in G-4, but when we start talking about economic needs, what if, instead of first nations just having clean drinking water, they want to do fracking with that water? What if they want to open up a bottling agency for bottled water? Are we going to put their cultural and spiritual needs on the back shelf for the economic needs?

What we're trying to protect is the cultural and spiritual part. It's what we talked to AFN about. It's what they recommended, and that's what we're going to go with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

Not seeing any other hands up, let's move to a vote.

Shall NDP-25 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0)

NDP-25 is defeated, which takes us to PV-2.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Chair, you might want to look at the clock. I think we're close to the wire.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're going to wrap in the next five to 10 minutes, maximum. Maybe we can dispose of this before then, but I'm very aware of the tributes that we want to get to for Mr. Sinclair.

PV-2 is automatically deemed moved. I just note for members that if it is adopted, NDP-26 and G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict, although NDP-26 has been withdrawn.

I give the floor to Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thanks again, Chair.

Again, the interest of PV-2 is bringing forward the call, from Six Nations of the Grand River specifically, to add “economic and cultural needs” to the water quantity available that this bill would prescribe.

It looks like you just ruled that this PV-2 was admissible. I heard comments from Mr. Melillo and Mr. Barbosa earlier that “economic needs“ would be out of the scope of the bill. My understanding is that when an amendment is ruled admissible, it expressly means that it is within scope. If the committee chooses to support PV-2, it would be supporting putting the “economic and cultural needs” of the first nation into this legislation.

Should the committee not support PV-2 but go for NDP-26, the committee could just subamend NDP-26 and add “cultural”. For those who would prefer to go with G-4, again, the committee could just add “economic”, and would only be increasing the needs of first nations when it comes to clean drinking water.

I live in a community where no one questions the economic need for water or the uses of water for economic needs, and I think that's the interest of Six Nations of the Grand River and, I imagine, other first nations across the country who would want to see a larger scope of their water needs considered by this legislation.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate where Mr. Morrice is coming from. We certainly heard from witnesses about how not having access to clean drinking water has impacted their economic activities. Think about how, if you're operating a café, for example, if you don't have clean drinking water, you can't provide the services that you require for your clients.

However, “economic”, just in and of itself, is such a broad term that it could mean anything and everything, including, as Mr. Battiste mentioned, the potential for an aquifer of fresh water to be drained for maybe a fracking operation, for example, or for a bottled water company to be established. It would then infringe upon the potential for those cultural and ceremonial needs, for example, to be met. It's the broadness of the term “economic”, and I don't think we have enshrined those economic needs in law anywhere else. For example, Kingston would be protected through law.

It's just that distinction that we want to support the economic needs of individuals in first nation communities. It absolutely is related to access to clean drinking water, but including that provision in Bill C-61 is so broad that I actually think it threatens the other pieces we're meaning to protect, the cultural part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

Next I have Ms. Idlout and then Mr. Morrice.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

There is a concern that when it comes to water quantity, first nations' economic needs are not included. When I think about water quantity available to every other society in Canada, they have the freedom to choose whether they use it for emergency management or for economic and cultural needs.

I'm going to support PV-4. I don't know whether we're going to need to park it as well, because I do want to see “spiritual needs” added to PV-4. I'm willing, between now and our next session, to make a written submission to amend PV-2 by adding “spiritual needs”. Given that I did withdraw NDP-26, I'm willing to make a subamendment to add “spiritual needs” as a way to strengthen PV-2.

Qujannamiik .

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

We'll go to Mr. Morrice. We'll likely have to wrap up after that.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I think that would be a wonderful subamendment that Ms. Idlout just mentioned, which would be to add “spiritual needs” to PV-2.

To the concerns raised by my government colleagues, Mr. Battiste and Mrs. Atwin, with respect to adding “economic”, I would offer that should there be concerns about fracking, there could be other legislation that would ban fracking, for example.

However, this isn't the place to be prescribing economic activity. This is the place to ensure that the legislation that's designed to support water in first nations communities is provided. Should there be certain economic activities that we don't support, we would support other legislation to address that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Morrice.

Before we wrap, Mr. Melillo wanted to weigh in as well.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Really quickly, because I know we're up against time, I want to clarify something. Did Ms. Idlout move that subamendment, or was she just speaking about moving that subamendment?

We can return with that copy, if necessary, at the next meeting. I just want to confirm if we were on that subamendment or if it was just an idea being presented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I don't want to speak for Ms. Idlout.

Ms. Idlout, could you clarify?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I am putting in my notice that I will submit a subamendment to add “spiritual needs” at our next session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo, and thank you, Ms. Idlout. That's something to look forward to when we reconvene.

Our next scheduled meeting is on Monday, November 18, at 3:30.

Do I have the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

The meeting is adjourned.