Evidence of meeting #131 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 consent.
A video is available from Parliament.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
The key consideration is that water flows. This specific section in clause 19 is about “on First Nation lands”. Therefore, there could be implications for provinces and territories, in terms of that flow off of first nations lands. It could potentially impinge on provincial jurisdiction.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Yes, this was said previously by my colleague Mr. Schmale regarding the Wet'suwet'en. Even resource projects that are supported by local first nations and indigenous communities can fall into this problematic language. It could limit that development. How many conversations have we had in this committee about economic reconciliation being a key to reconciliation for indigenous communities?
This, to me, especially in ridings like my own, where we have oil and gas.... It's my riding that produces the natural gas sent to the west coast, which the LNG Canada project distributes around the world to lower emissions around the world. That kind of project would potentially be limited by this kind of language.
I would be very much opposed to this because of the risk it puts all of those future projects under.
Liberal
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll build on what Mr. Zimmer said. I think he said it quite well.
I believe, in response to Mrs. Atwin's question, that this falls specifically within a first nations land. The Governor in Council having the power to dictate what economic reconciliation means is very problematic. Obviously, there are first nations opposed to resource development. Some are in favour of resource development and want to move forward with those types of operations. We have to ensure we are respecting all of those voices, those who say no and those who say yes.
Moving forward with this, again, and notwithstanding the fact that it's a “may”, a “might”, a “must” and all of that, it's a precedent I don't believe the government should be setting at this point. We need to ensure first nations have the ability to chart their course on this. That's an important part of economic reconciliation. I believe it's an important aspect of consent, as well.
I concur with my colleague Mr. Zimmer and encourage those around the table to vote against this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Our next round of questions goes to Mr. Lemire.
After Mr. Lemire, I will go to Mr. Schmale.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hear the Conservatives' position, and it's duly noted.
That said, I would like to remind everyone that many industries, such as food and mining, are already complying with the rules. They have to take into account the impact they have on natural resources and water, particularly in Quebec, obviously. That enables us to talk about sustainable development that respects nature.
I think it's important to increase the number of industries involved. I'm also hoping that all industries will listen to the people, especially first nations, when it comes to social acceptability.
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I know the member from the Bloc is a fierce advocate of nuclear safety and the proper disposal of waste. However, again, unless I'm wrong—maybe the officials or even the Bloc can confirm—we still have not defined “protection zone”.
Is that correct?
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay.
Again, we're expanding industries that some don't like, clearly. Yet, we don't define what it is we're actually trying to save here. I think this is more of an ideological motion rather than one trying to achieve the outcome of clean drinking water. Therefore, we're going to vote against it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Schmale.
I see Mr. Lemire has his hand up.
You have the floor, Mr. Lemire.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to point out, with all due respect, that the witnesses have talked about epidemiological consequences, so this isn't just about ideology.
Some people's health has been seriously compromised by the cumulative effects of lack of access to safe drinking water and of water contaminated by industry.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for taking the floor again.
It was mentioned right off the top in the first answer, but having looked through this again, I want to make sure that I'm clear about it. Clause 19 pertains to first nation land. Of course, in this proposal, it mentions first nation lands and protection zones and, as we've heard from my colleagues time and time again, we don't know exactly what that would be and whether that would be in first nation land or potentially outside of it.
Would this then expand the scope of clause 19 to potentially be beyond the first nation land, or does it limit the scope of a protection zone to being reserve land?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Potentially, you are correct both ways. Because clause 19 is specific to “on First Nation lands”, any regulatory-making power would be on first nation lands.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
With that, colleagues, let's go to a vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to NDP-35.
I'll pass the floor over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Chair.
NDP-35 amends clause 19 with the following:
minimum standards in respect of water and source water, including the quality and the quantity of available water and source water, as described under sections 14 and 15.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
We'll move to debate.
Mrs. Atwin, you have your hand up.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Again, the only concern is just where clause 19 is being built to be the “may” part. It's ambiguous for a reason, because it's about those protection zone agreements that will be signed with communities, again, through their self-determination.
It's the same kind of argument that I'm making for a few of these, in that of course the spirit of the amendment I support, but it's just that it's adding an additional layer that potentially then removes that self-determination piece. I think that for a lot of these concerns that have rightly been brought forward by partners and by you, it's just again that those details will come out in those protection agreements, where they are in the driver's seat of what that looks like for them.
For me, any additional layers in this clause specifically I won't be supporting.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
I want to answer a concern. If they are to imagine one government, I would imagine they would be able to guess the outcome, but we need to identify this because we need to create regulations towards this. I think it would help.
Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To our officials, would this amendment require any potential enforcement, or anything like that? How would it be regulated, in terms of the quality and quantity of water available, or source water?