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

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 131 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

As always, I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, and I want to express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands that they've stewarded since time immemorial.

I also want to remind you and to ask all in-person participants to read the guidelines written on the updated cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the committee resumed consideration of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Before we go into clause-by-clause consideration, this will be the last meeting that we projected under our initial budget. You will have received in your email a supplementary budget to be approved for our next meeting so that we can have food we're all able to enjoy as we do our work. I want to make sure we have unanimous consent to approve the supplementary budget.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Seeing that we have unanimous consent, that's approved. I will sign that and bring it to our Liaison Committee in short order.

With that, we are going to return to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-61.

Again, to help us with clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to welcome back our witnesses. From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Nelson Barbosa, director general, community infrastructure branch; Rebecca Blake, acting director, legislation, engagement and regulations; and Douglas Fairbairn, senior counsel, Crown-indigenous relations and northern affairs.

I also want to remind members that the amendments are confidential and that subamendments are to be shared electronically or in paper form in both official languages and sent to the clerk for distribution.

(On clause 15)

With that, we will resume debate on the amendment by Mr. Morrice, PV-2.

I will also note that, if PV-2 is adopted, then NDP-26 and G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict, but I think—

[A voice]

It's just G-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

—NDP-26 was withdrawn. Therefore, G-4 cannot be moved due to a line conflict if PV-2 is adopted.

With that, I will give the floor back to Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe you've received a subamendment by Ms. Idlout since our last meeting. Maybe I'll leave it to Ms. Idlout to move that subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I would like to begin in item PV-2 regarding the word “economic”. I would like to add the indigenous word....

[English]

I had asked the interpreter what the Inuktitut word for spiritual was, and I forget the word already. It's just to add the word “spiritual” after “economic” and before “and”, so that it reads “economic, spiritual and cultural”.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Colleagues, you should have received the updated subamendment. It's being sent right now. You should have that very shortly.

It is fairly straightforward, but as always, we want to make sure that we have that clearly in front of us. Here it is. The French version you have is right here, and the English version would have been circulated by Ms. Idlout about an hour ago.

With that, we can open it up the debate. Does anybody want to make an intervention related to the subamendment?

Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It has been some time since we've discussed this bill, so I want to confirm a couple of things.

I appreciate what Ms. Idlout is bringing forward. I think I still have the same concerns with PV-2 and the inclusion of “economic” needs, as was mentioned previously. I want to confirm with our officials here if they feel that “economic” needs are perhaps out of scope with what this bill is aiming to achieve.

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

Thanks for the question. It's good to be back and to see all of you.

I think where we last left off we talked about where you could, I think, make the case on scope. I think that was part of the conversation. I think there was also contemplation around the ability to quantify what the overall impact would be of the inclusion of the word “economic”. I believe this encapsulates our previous conversation.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I appreciate that. I don't want to reiterate what was said, but I wanted to make sure that was clear.

I would say, Mr. Chair, for our side, we maintain that it's a bit unclear what those economic needs would be. I believe it is out of the scope of what this bill is hoping to achieve. For that reason, I wouldn't support the main amendment and would extend that to the subamendment as well, since we would not be supporting the amendment.

I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

Mr. Morrice has his hand up. I'll turn it over to him.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'll reiterate from our last meeting, as I shared last time on the same point, and remind committee members that, by virtue of the amendment being ruled admissible, which it has been by virtue of its being moved, that means for the committee that what is in that amendment is in fact within scope. It is within the scope of this bill, because it has been moved.

I hope that committee members would keep that in mind as they consider the proposal Ms. Idlout has put forward to add “spiritual” to the needs of first nations that would be provided for by this bill, as well as the original amendment that would also add “economic”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

Not seeing any other hands up, why don't we go to a vote here?

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're back to the amendment as amended.

Is there any intervention or debate on this amendment?

Mr. Battiste.

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

Yes, I want to, for the record, say that I think that the addition of “spiritual” is a good thing in terms of the communities' needs. What we have a problem with as government is that we have the word “economic” in there. I think we've been told that it's not part of what this legislation is aimed at doing. For that reason, we can't support this with the word “economic” in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste. I'm not seeing any other hands up.

Let's go to a vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

PV-2 is defeated, which takes us to G-4.

I'll turn the floor over to Mrs Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-61, in clause 15, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 10 with the following:

management needs of the First Nation, taking into account its cultural and spiritual needs and based on its cur-

Again, it enshrines the importance that we've all recognized of including “cultural and spiritual”. It also responds to requests from the Assembly of First Nations and our partners who worked with us on this bill. It's also consistent with UNDRIP as well, so this is important for us. I think it's more concise as well, and it captures what partners were requesting of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

Is there any debate on G-4?

Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not to debate but just to reiterate that we are supportive of this. We had concerns, the same concerns raised by the Liberals in the previous amendment and subamendment. Just in case it was not clear, we just wanted to make sure of our position on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

Not seeing any other hands up, let's go to a vote on G-4.

I think we have unanimous consent here.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 16)

We move to clause 16, and the only amendment we have here is NDP-27.

I'll just open the floor to Ms. Idlout if she wishes to move NDP-27.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Chairperson.

Regarding NDP-27, as a committee, it was given to us by the B.C. Assembly of First Nations. They requested we make an amendment that:

16(1) The Minister must ensure that wastewater effluent on First Nation lands and in the protection zones adjacent to those lands at least meet the stan-

It would also replace lines 5 to 7 on page 11 with the following:

lations or, on the request of a First Nation, wastewater effluent standards in place in the province or territory where the First Nation lands of that First Nation are located.

(2) Subsection (1) applies despite any exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in section 6.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I'll open it up to debate.

I see Mrs. Atwin has her hand up, so I'll pass it over to her.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We debated a similar amendment that also included this piece around “the Minister must”. The concern is just that it's removing that self-determination piece again for individual first nations as to how their laws will be applied over their territories. There's the idea that protection agreements will be forthcoming as well, so it's again about that self-determined piece. It's about ensuring that they are the ones to drive that process as well. We don't want to be too prescriptive, so while it's well-intentioned, again, I think it removes the power of individual communities to pick the standard they would prefer.

I would also defer to our experts again to clarify whether I'm understanding that correctly. However, that's my position on this one.