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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
Next I have Ms. Idlout, Mr. Carr and then Mr. Lemire.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I would like to remind you of what I've been saying. First nations and indigenous people had their own sets of laws protecting their lands and waters before settlers came in. They were protecting their fresh waters and stewarded the land for many years, for millennia.
When Canada became a country, first nations and indigenous people were robbed. They weren't just robbed; their children were taken. First nations were told, “This is how much land you will have.” Their land was stolen. Their water sources were stolen.
Regarding Bill C-61, when it's pertaining to first nations people, it says that this right will be given back to the first nations. However, the way it's written, and from what I'm hearing, it will not be given with full strength. You will be giving only a portion of it, because you are concerned about when you were robbing us of our way of doing....
I will be pushing this forward and pushing for this because there was a co-development with first nations, and they were co-developing this with the federal government. When they are trying to make amendments for these standards, they know who they represent, and the people they represent have said that this is an important item.
I have to remind you, as members of Parliament, that we have to take this into consideration because we need to give this back. We know this needs to proceed. Too many first nations, Inuit and Métis don't have adequate fresh water. There are too many boil water advisories, and not enough funding is provided.
You're saying we'll give this back to them, but I am concerned about the questions I'm hearing and I'm trying to remind you that we need to give this back with strength, with tangible outcomes, because we need to work on our reconciliation.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the speaking list is Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Just very quickly, Mr. Chair, for the record, in response to something Mr. Zimmer said—and he seems to have difficulty resisting the urge to take partisan shots—I will remind him that this is not a government amendment. When we talk about the government putting forward things to try to disrupt this legislation, I will respectfully remind him that the vast majority of amendments put forward are not government amendments.
We're very serious about seeing this move forward. I appreciate his contention about the past nine years, and there is certainly some legitimacy and room for discussion to debate where we are now. However, the point is that at this moment in time, these amendments that are holding us up at this part of the process are not government amendments. For the record, I'm sharing that with the committee, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few questions.
I hope I'm not reiterating anything. There's been a wide-ranging discussion on this, but I'll try to come back to some specifics.
There's the idea of meeting “the First Nation's needs for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights”. What those needs are is vague. Are there any thoughts on how that would be defined or how that would be executed, should this pass?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I would tend to agree that it is vague.
I would also point to the broader references in the Constitution around aboriginal and treaty rights, which include Inuit and Métis as well. In terms of the scope of the bill and the fact that this bill is being focused on first nations only, I would also add the point, in terms of clarity, that it would apply only to first nations.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
That's right.
My concern is that I'm not sure how the standard, which is undefined, would be met, or how it would be monitored. I don't know if you can comment further to that, but I appreciate your clarification in the previous answer.
I'll leave it at that, unless you have any other comments.
Liberal
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is one question that remains unanswered, and I would like to put it to you, Mr. Barbosa.
How can we make sure that water becomes a priority and is available to human beings?
When it comes to setting priorities for drinking water, first nations take a back seat to many other essential and less essential services.
How can we ensure that first nations receive greater consideration and are prioritized? A treaty may not be the way to address this, and adding a provision in the bill won't solve the problem, either.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the question. It's a big one.
I would say a couple things to take it back to the bill. There are a series of provisions about rights, standards, regulations, water quality and water quantity, which we're getting into now. I would also point to the amendment passed a few days ago, which was about the duty of Canada to provide, in domestic law, clean and safe drinking water to first nations, which is a historic and significant commitment that has not existed.
The compounding factors around quality; quantity; regulations; standards; the funding for capital, infrastructure, and maintenance; and the historic provision of domestic law provide a fairly robust regime, both legislatively and with regard to policy, to support the provision of clean and safe drinking water.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
Next I have Ms. Idlout and Mr. Schmale.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I will be asking my question in English, because it's kind of technical.
With regard to the wording of proposed clause 14.1 in NDP-24, it states in the middle of the paragraph, “must at least meet the First Nation's needs for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights, among other purposes.”
Is that not clear? It says, “for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights”. Is it okay in the way it's worded? It's not creating a debate about what treaty rights are, because that's not what the provision says; it's asking for an amendment that allows “First Nation's needs for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights”.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
In terms of what the provision reads, the lack of clarity, from my perspective, is very clearly around what the exercise of aboriginal and treaty rights would mean for individual first nations, as there are different cultures and traditions in how rights are exercised, so the exact “how” is what is not included in the provision.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you for that.
Would it help to add an amendment to the definition section about potentially what that could mean so that the framework for that “how” is given?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
It could potentially help.
The one piece I would also mention is the non-derogation clause to help ensure that any amendment or potential proposed amendment around a definition would not abrogate or derogate from existing and recognized aboriginal and treaty rights. The one potential risk could be that as things are prescribed in federal law, it's minimizing those rights. That would be the one consideration to reflect on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next on the list I have Mr. Schmale.
November 7th, 2024 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Again, the topic that I keep harping on is the protection zone under this amendment.
Continue to scroll down to Kawartha Conservation. This is not anything negative against them. Lots of good friends work there—close friends, in fact—but the reason I keep bringing this up is to reinforce the point I'm trying to make. Under Kawartha Conservation's questions and answers, we see, “What is source water protection?” The answer is:
In 2000, the town of Walkerton, Ontario's drinking water was polluted. A total of seven people died and thousands got sick. After this, the province took action to make sure that all municipal drinking water sources are safe to drink. One of the main suggestions was protecting the water source itself, which is how the source water protection program began.
That's it. There's no real definition. This is even on just the provincial and local levels. They have a source water protection plan, which is under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in Ontario and allows this plan to be updated annually at the local level through Kawartha Conservation and their partners. It's similar.
First of all, this plan regulates the application of road salt, the storage of snow and the application of agricultural source material, and the list goes on. There are 22 items on the list that can be updated annually, not by elected lawmakers but by the departments involved, Kawartha Conservation and the bureaucracy itself.
We are implementing policies with the force of law—whether through fines or, in the worst case, prison, potentially, depending on how severe this is—and they are imposed, so to speak, at the federal level. We are not defining this, but this legislation provides the minister, among others, with the power to continue to update this list. We, as elected officials, get to sit back and say, “Well, gee, it's the department. What are we going to do?” Meanwhile, people on the ground are impacted.
Again, we all want clean water for everybody. I think that's the goal, but not defining things is potentially going to lead in a direction that potentially will have unintended consequences, so I really think....
Again, I plead with this committee: Let's get that definition done. Perhaps organizations like local conservation authorities might be able to use it, because right now even they are having an issue defining this, which gives broad power.
When we're trying to ensure certainty for industry, while we're trying to ensure certainty in this legislation and the ability to provide clean drinking water, if there's no definition, we have no idea of what we're talking about. This is all big thinking here. Please, before this gets done, I'm begging this committee: Let's define some of these things.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think there have been discussions, Mr. Chair, and I think we'd like to park this one. It's one of those areas where we've already recognized that there are aboriginal and treaty rights under “Purpose” in subclause 4(c), but how this can be read together with this one is something that we're hearing now is out of the scope. We need a little bit more discussion on how we recognize constitutional rights, where this fits outside of the scope and some further clarification on that. I think we can park this one and keep moving to the next clause while we get that clarification.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Battiste. I understand that you're moving to let this clause stand, which is a new clause added after clause 14, so it would be new clause 14.1.
This is debatable. Are there any members who would like to weigh in on that?
To be clear, the proposal from Mr. Battiste is to let this proposed clause stand. We would return to it after we've gone through the legislation, including the definitions clause, which we stood earlier in our review.
Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I am in agreement to stand this discussion, but I also want to highlight another bullet point to add with this proposal that maybe everybody is forgetting.
Starting in the third line, there is a very clear limitation that says that this would only be for the first nation, so it would be “under the jurisdiction of that First Nation”. It's not a broad, vague identification. It's saying that this would be for standards on “The quality of water and source water available on the First Nation lands of a First Nation and in a protection zone under the jurisdiction of that First Nation”.
Regardless of that first nation, if it has “Aboriginal and treaty rights”, the following part of this amendment helps to clarify that exercising either of those would be under the jurisdiction only of that first nation.
To help clarify and make sure that members understand, we're not asking for a broad exercise or a broad discussion of what these rights are; it's to make sure that first nations that have jurisdiction are able to “at least meet the First Nation's needs for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights, among other purposes.”
I just needed to clarify that for you all so that you can see that it's focusing on first nations that have that specific jurisdiction.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout, for that clarification.
I don't see any others who would like to weigh in on the debate, so maybe we can move to a vote on this.