Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Douglas Fairbairn]

The only thing I'd mention is that the Governor in Council makes the regs on the minister's recommendation, but the Governor in Council does not need to make them. It's a “may”. As you noted, if a first nation makes its own laws, then they may opt out of the regulations in whole or in part.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Next we'll go to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm so sorry, Mr. Barbosa. Can I get you to repeat an answer that you gave about where you haven't seen it?

[Nelson Barbosa]

That's okay. I appreciate it. It's good clarity.

My quandary is around this: In a regulation space, I can understand training and certification regulation because it's aligned to a known standard. Where I am confused is on a regulation that is to both recruit and retain operators. I haven't seen a parallel in law that is a regulation around recruitment and retention.

I could stand corrected. Hopefully that answers your question. I could be wrong.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Yes, I don't know. I might just be causing more confusion, because I know that with the Nunavut land claims agreement, we have article 23, which is about Inuit employment. I'm wondering if this amendment is trying to serve a similar purpose. In a land claim agreement like the one Nunavut has where it talks about the importance of employment and training, maybe what this amendment is trying to do is to ensure that regulation-making powers for recruitment, training, certification and retention of just the water services operators is something that is possible to realize.

[Nelson Barbosa]

Yes, it's a good parallel. Article 23 speaks about Inuit representation in territorial services. There isn't that level of specification here. It doesn't specify that these must be first nation individuals or must be retained in their first nation, so I would draw a distinction between article 23 and the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

Next, I will pass the floor over to Mr. Battiste.

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

I'm following up with what Mr. Melillo said. There's a lot of “may”, and the Governor in Council “may”. There are a lot of things that “may”. All of these things “may”, but then in the non-application, a first nations law would oversee it. It's not a hill we're going to die on over any of this. However, I note that the next 13 amendments are on things that may have no real ramifications other than our debating this over here. If you guys want to skip over clause 19 as a general and just leave it as is, then nothing goes wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

All right. I'm not seeing any more hands up. Let's move to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Given that NDP-32 is identical to BQ-8, it cannot be moved, which takes us to NDP-33.

I will pass the floor over to Ms. Idlout, should she choose to move it. I may have something to say about it if it is moved.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I'll move NDP-33. It has been given to us by the Assembly of First Nations. I'll read it in English, as follows:

[English]

the insurance required to be maintained by First Nations in respect of water services and water services operators or by the Minister on behalf of a First Nation that cannot reasonably obtain such insurance by ordinary means; and

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

I'm going to have to make a ruling on the admissibility of this.

The amendment attempts to create an obligation for financing that doesn't currently exist in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

With that, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme which imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Unless my decision is going to be challenged, we'll move on to NDP-34.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

NDP-34 was given to us by the Assembly of First Nations. It reads that clause 19 be amended by the following:

ter, as described under sections 14 and 15, respectively, and the treatment and disposal of wastewater, as described under section 16.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I'll open the floor for debate.

Mrs. Atwin, the floor is yours.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Chair, in line with similar conversations we've had, is this also potentially infringing upon self-determination in removing that oversight for how laws are applied over territories that first nations govern? Could I ask the panel?

[Nelson Barbosa]

I would say, in conjunction with some other conversations we've had at this table, that the proposed amendment could or would remove first nations' ability for first nations choice. I'm not sure if my colleague has anything to add.

[Douglas Fairbairn]

I'm sorry. I'm taking a look at this.

It seems to relate back to clause 14, clause 15 and clause 16, so I don't necessarily see a legal issue. However, there may be an issue for the department in terms of carrying out these obligations.

[Rebecca Blake]

Maybe I'll add that the current draft of that regulatory making is around standards broadly. This proposed amendment would narrow that ability to those specific clauses in the standards section that were debated here today. Therefore, the question would be about broadening or narrowing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

I see no more hands up, so let's move to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We will now move on to amendment BQ‑9.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, amendment BQ‑9 will not be moved, because we received the wrong version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

In that case, we'll move on to BQ‑10.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First nations are directly affected by industry decisions, and several of those nations have appeared before the committee to testify about the cumulative effects on their health. Since there are no regulations, we want the government to commit to clarifying its expectations and protecting first nations. That is its responsibility, in light of its fiduciary obligations toward first nations. With that in mind, this is about a regulatory framework for the nuclear, gas and oil industries to protect water and source water on first nations lands and in protection zones.

We want to provide first nations with a kind of social responsibility. Companies that cause pollution often shirk their responsibilities. Health impacts are significant. I myself was touched by what the first nations representatives told the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I want to remind colleagues that we are on BQ-10. We moved through BQ-9 quickly.

With that, I'll open it up for debate.

Mrs. Atwin, I'll start with you.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly in agreement about adding additional layers to protect against industry threatening the health and safety of indigenous communities. However, my concern is that most natural resource and industry frameworks fall outside of first nations lands specifically.

What are the implications of adding this piece specifically, in terms of how it responds to the other parts of the bill?