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.
Rebecca Blake Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, you are correct in terms of differing from first nation choice, as well as those agreements in collaboration with provinces and territories.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize, Mr. Battiste. I know you're eager, but I just have a couple of questions on this, along the same lines as Mrs. Atwin's.
The first is actually about the word “adjacent” in there. I know we had a discussion at length, Mr. Chair, about adjacency, and it was removed in previous clauses of the bill.
Would reintroducing adjacency in this instance cause any inconsistencies or any complications in the legislation?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thank you for the question.
Similar to a conversation we had on water, the reintroduction of the word “adjacent” may create inconsistency throughout the bill.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you.
Further to that, not to belabour the point, but as Ms. Atwin mentioned, there's the issue of choice and enforceability. It mentions not just first nation lands but the protection zones as well. We don't know, of course, exactly what those are going to look like at this point. It potentially could include lands that would not be part of the first nation.
To the experts, do you foresee any challenges with how that would be enforced if it includes lands not in the first nation?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
It could potentially predetermine what's in agreements that are agreed to by the provinces, territories and first nations themselves, so it would have an effect on those choices for those multiple jurisdictions.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
It would essentially remove the choice not just from the first nation, but potentially from the provinces and territories as well. Is that what you're saying?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
That's correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
Not seeing any other hands up, let's go to a vote on NDP-27.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 16 agreed to on division)
(Clause 17 agreed to on division)
(On clause 18)
The amendment we have here is NDP-28. I'll open the floor for the moving of NDP-28.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you.
Regarding NDP-28, it was given to us by the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.
If it wasn't voted, how do we want this to proceed? I wouldn't mind if this were to be passed as well.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
I'll open it up for debate.
I'm not seeing any hands.
November 18th, 2024 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope it's not a tough one.
I just want to confirm, if NDP-28 passes, would it have any impact on the admissibility of CPC-1?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
No, I can confirm that it will not affect CPC-1.
Not seeing any other hands up, we can move to a vote. Shall NDP-28 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I'll open the floor to Mr. Melillo to move CPC-1.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been waiting for this moment for a while, so I appreciate the opportunity.
On CPC-1, the wording is fairly straightforward. I'll just quickly read it in. We would add:
“(3) The Minister must obtain the consent of the First Nation governing body before applying the standards referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b).
For the benefit of our committee members, we've heard from multiple first nations that have expressed concerns regarding the potential power of the minister in this legislation, the Minister of Indigenous Services, to potentially impose regulations and other decisions upon them.
We've heard it during this study. We've heard it from other studies as well, but I believe that, if a first nations governing body does not choose a standard, the minister can still work with first nations to determine which standard will apply. However, the governing body will ultimately decide. Having that consent will ensure that there is not just a consultation with each first nation but that the power of decision-making is with the first nation.
I have some more to say on that, but maybe I'll just stop there and see what my colleagues feel about this before going any further. I think this will be a great way to strengthen the bill to ensure that first nations can guide their destiny with this.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
With that, we'll open the debate.
Go ahead, Ms. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could I just quickly ask about what the possible implications of this wording would be?
We've gone with “consultation and cooperation” because it aligns with UNDRIP and previous legislation that already exists. Of course, I certainly understand and know what free, prior and informed consent means, especially in the context of the local communities that I represent. Also, New Brunswick has a policy provincially. I'm just concerned that perhaps the way it's placed there could be more bureaucracy that could perhaps lead to a delay in implementing the measures in this act, which we've been waiting so long for.
I'd just like to know if I'm interpreting this correctly. Could this, in fact, hold things up for first nations?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
There is the possibility due to a lack of consensus on what “consent” means across different first nations. This proposed amendment is in relation to the application of standards to ensure that there's safe drinking water and waste-water services on first nation lands and the choice of those standards. Should all of those discussions need to happen individually with different definitions of consent, it could slow down the application of those standards.
I'd also point to clause 6 that was already looked at in terms of paragraph 6(2)(a), which allows for first nation law-making. First nation laws could always make a different choice at any time as well.
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I see in subclause 18(1) that we've already said:
For the purposes of sections 14 and 16, if a choice is not specified by a First Nation governing body, the Minister, in consultation and cooperation with the First Nation governing body, must determine
There's already some strong language in there. I'm wondering if someone would be able to argue that, if we didn't have, for example, a band council resolution or a vote by that community, outside entities could challenge that the legislation wasn't followed, which could end up delaying the implementation of a water standard in that community.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
You are correct.
As well, in noting back to clause 6, it really leaves it open in terms of first nation law-making and what first nation governance systems are chosen by them. Adding more prescription in there would take more choice away from first nations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.
Next, I turn it over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Very quickly, where else in the bill does it require the minister to obtain the consent of the first nation governing body?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
It doesn't require consent. However, in the principles section, it does require that all decisions be guided by the principle of free, prior and informed consent.