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

[Rebecca Blake]

In terms of the existing clause 11—just to clarify that's what you mean in the bill—it really provides interaction with first nation laws. Protection zones would depend upon all parties coming to an agreed-upon approach for coordination of those laws. It would depend on not just first nation laws but also provinces and what they would like to see in the coordination of their laws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Ms. Idlout, go ahead.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for clearly answering my question.

I have a concern about the Liberals and the Conservatives feeling that it is too prescriptive. They are concerned, but I want to remind you that this was proposed and requested by the Assembly of First Nations. They have put out there what they feel strongly about, and from what I think, the first nations people would know that this is not coming from the federal government. It's the first nations people who are the nation requesting this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Mr. Battiste, go ahead.

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

I understand, and I'm reading the differences in the texts, and it just seems that the one that's currently in the legislation is a lot cleaner, whereas the amendments are now offering really defined ways for how first nations should interact with each other, as opposed to leaving that to them. It appears that we're telling them that this is how they should be looking at it.

NDP-22 says, “taking into account factors such as geographic and hydrological proximity and the First Nations’ dependence on the water or source water”.

We just leave what moves forward open to first nations to determine within themselves, based on their own laws and their own beliefs. It's cleaner in the government version.

However, I'll ask the expert: Is there anything in this that wouldn't already be included in what's in the government's more concise version of this clause?

[Nelson Barbosa, Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thanks for the question. Good morning, everyone.

The act is clear in terms of the provisions and law-making ability of first nations—what law-making ability they have and their ability to entrench laws on their lands.

Then, to the point of protection zones, again, it's about coordination of laws, and that could be among first nations as well, as we discussed.

I believe, to your point, that much of the clarity of law-making is already well entrenched in the legislation itself.

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

Does anything in the current way it's written limit the factors? Can these factors be considered even if these amendments don't pass as written?

What I'm getting at is this: Do we need to go through all of these, or do they have the ability within the current text of the current legislation?

[Nelson Barbosa]

In my mind, the ability for first nations to agree on laws and their ability to talk about how law-making works in their space already exists in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Next I have Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm going to speak in English, because there are too many technical terms to interpret in Inuktitut.

In terms of what is being presumed to be more concise in clause 11 and what my amendment is trying to do, is there anything in the legislation that provides for the opportunity for first nations that might...? We know that different first nations will have their own sets of laws. If there are two different first nations that have inconsistencies or conflicts within each of their own laws, are there spaces where, absent my amendment, the opportunity for conflict resolution is created?

What clause 11 does not do, which my amendment does, for example, is assess distinct traditions, customs and practices of first nations. I need to point out that this is not just about conciseness. Clause 11 only speaks to first nations laws prevailing with respect to different sections of the act as well as legislation in Canada, but not with respect to conflicts or inconsistencies that might exist between first nations.

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question.

Subclause 6(1) would be one piece that I would point to that's currently in the bill. Under paragraph 6(1)(a), those are first nation laws on first nation lands. In that case, first nation laws would have the ability to put those conflict provisions within their laws themselves. They would uniquely apply to those first nation lands, so a conflict would be very unlikely.

In addition, there's paragraph 6(1)(b) around protection zones. They provide pathways for coordination and collaboration among all parties, including provinces. That could also be potentially through an agreement as well, as is found further on in the bill. Those agreements could also address those conflicts between any first nation laws, as well as provincial and federal laws, and how they work together and are coordinated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Next on the speaking list, I have Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thanks again, Chair.

Given everything that's been said, I agree with much of what has been said about this, and how specific it is. NDP-22 (2) also notes “the inconsistency or conflict may be resolved”. I think that makes it a little less specific. The question would be, would any of this truly be binding? It's all very optional, and it doesn't seem binding to me.

Would you agree?

[Rebecca Blake]

The term “may” would not be binding.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

There we go.

That's all I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Next I have Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Conciseness is important, but it's also about self-determination for individual communities and their leadership and governing bodies and how they would choose to move forward on this. Each coordination agreement or protection zone agreement could specify and further expand on these ideas, again for each individual nation.

I think it actually limits their ability to have that self-determination when having those negotiations. Again, the prescriptive piece is not necessarily taking anything away, but it's allowing them to be the stewards of those conversations moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

Seeing no further hands up, let's move to a recorded vote.

Shall NDP-22 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

With that, we are going to move on.

Shall clause 11 carry?

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Can I vote no?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Yes, you can vote no.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Can I ask a technical question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Sure.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

What happens when I vote no when you ask if the clause will carry?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Ms. Idlout, you can ask for a recorded vote.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I think she's also asking about “on division". Basically it means we oppose, but it still passes. It's a way for the opposition to—