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
We'll stand it until the end, so we're going to vote on that.
Is there agreement among the committee to stand this amendment and return to it after we get to the definitions clause?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
(On clause 15)
NDP-24 will be stood, which takes us to clause 15. The next amendment we are coming up to is NDP-25. If NDP-25 is adopted, PV-2, NDP-26 and G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
With that, I'll open the floor to a mover for NDP-25.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik.
I'm going to speak in English to save some time.
NDP-25 was submitted to us by the Okanagan Indian Band. You can read their submission in the summary of the brief on page 10.
This proposal is specifically related under standards to water quantity. They are proposing that:
The Minister must ensure that the quantity of water available on the First Nation lands of a First Nation and in the protection zone adjacent to those lands meet the needs of the First Nation....
I see, though, that there's a difference between PV-2 and this NDP-25. In PV-2, they're talking about needs, whereas in NDP-25, we're talking about practices. I would like to get an explanation of the difference between NDP-25 and PV-2, and I don't know if I can do that without PV-2 having been moved.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-25 is moved.
Ms. Idlout, just for your information, we can discuss the differences between those two and get feedback from officials to that effect as well.
I'll turn it over to officials to speak to the differences between NDP-25 and PV-2.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
The key difference is, in essence, that NDP-25 is much broader in terms of multiple provisions being proposed, whereas PV-2 is a more concise provision of NDP-25. That's my perspective.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
On the speaking list, I have Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Battiste and then, joining us online, Mr. Morrice.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I guess we can get back to that. We discussed at length last night the “adjacent” term and the problematic word that it is because it attaches itself to every other location, whether it's in the province of B.C. or wherever. That would be a concern. We voted previously that it wouldn't cut it, and here it is again. I guess there are similar concerns about this term in this particular clause.
Thanks.
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I understand that what G-4 talks about is a bit broader and uses the exact language the AFN had asked us to use in looking at the cultural and spiritual needs. I think that covers all of the things that are covered within PV-2 and the NDP amendment, but it uses the broader language that was recommended by the AFN.
I wonder if we could get the experts to give us their sense of whether G-4 covers what is intended, without looking at the adjacency part within the NDP amendment. I understand there are issues with this on the Conservative side.
In terms of ensuring that the water meets the needs of first nations, taking into account their cultural and spiritual needs, is it the cleaner language that makes it broader?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the question.
I would agree that G-4 is common across PV-2 and NDP-25 in the language on cultural and spiritual needs, so it addresses that. I would say there is a scale-up on economic development and aboriginal rights found in some of the other provisions, but the commonality across the three is found in the cultural and spiritual needs language.
Thanks.
Liberal
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to clarify that this clause talks about the quantity of water that must be made available. As I've shared before, all of the amendments that I brought forward come directly from Six Nations of the Grand River.
In this case, PV-2 is seeking to add economic and cultural needs to the needs required in this section. I see that in NDP-25. Should the committee support NDP-25, there's a specific mention of both economic well-being and cultural practices. Of course, that's in PV-2. If the committee pursues NDP-26, which has economic but not cultural considerations, I would suggest that the committee could simply subamend NDP-26 to add the cultural aspect, should you choose not to go with PV-2.
When it comes to G-4, however, there is no mention of economic needs, so if the committee pursues G-4, I would encourage a colleague to consider subamending G-4 to add, "taking into account its cultural, economic and spiritual needs". Should the committee do that, they would be meeting the request of the Six Nations of the Grand River to ensure that both economic and cultural needs are included in clause 15.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Morrice.
Next we have Mr. Melillo,
then Mr. Lemire,
and after that, we have Ms. Idlout.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
I'll start by saying that I agree with much of what Mr. Battiste said. I think G-4 looks succinct and fairly straightforward.
I'll build off Mr. Morrice's point about economic well-being. I really appreciate the sentiment. I would have a similar concern, as I've previously raised a few times here, in terms of what that would mean and how that would be determined.
I'd ask our officials here if there's any insight into how the quantity of water for economic well-being could be determined.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
In my mind, it would be very difficult to assess the economic needs associated with clean and safe drinking water, particularly for a bill that's aimed at providing clean, safe drinking water and waste water. I personally would struggle with understanding the impact from an economic lens.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Would you say that including the economic aspect is perhaps beyond the scope of this bill?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I think you could make that case.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay.
I have one more question, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Zimmer raised a very interesting point about adjacency. Of course, we talked about that at length yesterday. We removed adjacency pertaining to protection zones from this bill. If NDP-25 were to be adopted, it brings adjacency back to the table, creating an inconsistency.
Would that present any challenges in terms of harmonizing the bill? Would it become inconsistent or difficult to work with from that angle, having adjacency in this section but removed from the previous section?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
As in all pieces of legislation, it would be good to have analogous language throughout the bill. I would say, given the decision from yesterday, that reinserting adjacency could create confusion.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The points I wanted to talk about are essentially the same as those raised by the Green Party. I think the economic and cultural aspects are important, despite the points that were just raised.
Therefore, the Bloc Québécois would prefer to support amendment PV‑2.
The idea of a proposal to amend amendment G‑4 to include economic needs could also be a solution that would get us on side.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you so much.
First of all, I must express my observation that when the Liberals work together with the Conservatives, it's at a time when indigenous rights are being questioned.
I do, however, agree with regard to proposed subclause 15(1) that because it was submitted at a time before we had discussed adjacency and because these discussions are not static, my proposed subclause 15(1) amendment is not the greatest.
I do want to ask the experts about proposed subclauses 15(2) and 15(3).
Are there other places in the bill where proposed subclauses 15(2) and 15(3) can still be recognized, so as to ensure that the minister must take into account a first nation's current and projected water usage needs in respect of the framework under clause 27?