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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
We're going to start the debate.
I'll turn it over first to Mrs. Atwin.
November 18th, 2024 / 5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you very much.
This is getting to the heart of an important issue. I'm concerned that while recruitment and retention are critical, important aspects, is this inadvertently asserting the Government of Canada into the decision-making for first nations? I think it's a bit assuming on behalf of the government's role in this part.
The bill itself is ensuring that communities have the resources to go and do this and make decisions on their behalf.
Maybe I could turn to our expert panel on this. Is this an area where you heard first nations wanting that additional government oversight? Could you provide some clarity?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
No, it has not been an area that's been specified by first nations through ongoing engagement around this area. We do hear, through that ongoing engagement, definitely needs for adequate funding, sustainable funding, as you see throughout the rest of the bill, as well as with the funding framework that we'll get to as well as part of the study.
That's where it's more found, the first nation input, but in terms of federal regulations, we have not specifically had from first nations a desire for federal regulation in this matter.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
Next I'll turn it over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
BQ-8 and NDP-32 are exactly the same. From our understanding, NDP-32 was given to this committee by the Assembly of First Nations. It was the Assembly of First Nations who were co-developing Bill C-61, so I urge you to vote yes, because it will support education about freshwater services.
Thank you.
Liberal
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to give my colleague a friendly response.
If we don't focus on training, recruitment and certification for the retention of indigenous people, it will effectively become the government's responsibility by default. If we can't delegate these powers and take action within the communities, they'll be dependent on southern communities, which means there won't be any progress.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
I see that Mr. Battiste has his hand up.
I will pass the floor to you.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think the concern from the government side on this is not necessarily in the recruitment but rather the retention of water operators. Water operators might want to go to where they're paid better by other communities.
For us to make legislation that states they have to retain people is taking away from first nations' abilities to determine for their own communities what's the best path forward. I am fearful that by putting in this language we're telling them that they must or they shall retain their water operators, and I don't know if that would be consistent with their free, prior and informed consent, as we mentioned before.
It's a small thing, but it's something that we'd like the communities to be able to have: that ability to determine which operators they choose to retain and how they choose to do that, without government regulations specifying how they do it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Battiste.
Next, we have Mrs. Atwin and then Mr. Melillo.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I think the bill gets to a lot of this as well. There are existing measures in the bill described under clause 27, for example, where those operations are included in that co-developed funding framework, which would then support these activities, but again, driven by first nations and their self-determination.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mrs. Atwin.
Next, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate this being brought forward. I'm leaning towards supporting it.
I think these are very important things being added, especially with recruitment and retention. I understand what Mr. Battiste is saying, where you don't want to be too prescriptive. You want to ensure that first nations have the opportunity to guide their destinies. I don't know any first nations that would not want to retain water operators. I suppose if there was an individual who....
Before I go further, let me ask the officials something.
In my understanding of the comments by Mr. Battiste, it seemed that his concern was that—and he can correct me if I'm wrong—if there's a water operator who is perhaps not doing a good job or if the community does not want to retain that individual, then they would be forced to retain that individual. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that the case?
When I read this, I don't think that this is specifying any specific individual but, just broadly, that it would be the hope for the first nations, if that makes sense.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the question. I think it did.
Yes, certainly there's the question around first nations.... As it stands, as you know, first nations are owners and operators of their water systems, and they employ individuals to perform those functions, so that exists. The section is on regulations. We'd be creating a regulation on recruitment and retention. I'm not sure, in my mind, what that would mean. Training and certification, I understand.
Not to get overly technical, but plants are designed to a certain level and to a certain standard. The people who operate those plants have to be trained to that standard, so I can understand the alignment, in a regulatory space, between performing a function and ensuring that the person who does that function is trained and certified. Recruitment and retention, from a regulatory standpoint, eludes me. What regulation would we be making? That's the question in my mind.
To me, it is the alignment with the regulation. The choice and the management of the systems is already in the hands of first nations. I think we'd be creating considerable ambiguity, and I don't know what that means or what regulation would be performed. It eludes me, greatly.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I appreciate that. I think that unfortunately has been a common theme. There's a lot of uncertainty in definitions here.
My follow-up point is that any of what we are talking about here in this clause could be overridden. First nations law could supersede it in the very next clause, the non-application. I think we're maybe having a discussion about something that may not even be applied anyway. We're talking about ensuring there's first nation choice and consent.
As I read the current legislation, with the non-application clause, the first nations would have that consent to essentially opt out already. Is that not correct?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, as written, first nations would opt out. Again, to what end? What regulation is being created? I think it could create confusion. As for a regulation over recruitment and retention, I haven't seen that. I don't think there's a precedent.
Liberal
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Governor in Council can make regulations to act more quickly on the training and recruitment components, thereby providing more room to manoeuvre. That is one of the missing elements.
It is therefore important to name the powers that belong to the Governor in Council and the government when it comes to taking direct action with first nations. Yes, it will require additional resources, but those powers must be given. That's why we believe it's important to include them here, while taking into account the needs of the first nations themselves, of course.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Melillo and then to Ms. Idlout.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you Mr. Chair.
I apologize for taking the floor again. I just noticed another aspect of this.
Within this clause, it states that the minister “may make” regulations. My understanding is that it doesn't instruct the minister “to make” the regulations.
Again, maybe we are splitting hairs on something that is not necessarily enforceable or binding from that aspect. Is it the case that, should this amendment pass or not, the minister would not be compelled to make such regulations?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, the Governor in Council “may, on the Minister’s recommendation, make regulations”. The Governor in Council does not have to make regulations on these matters, but the Governor in Council could do it if the minister so recommended.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Could those regulations be made now? Could they be made presently without this legislation even being in effect? Could such regulations be made as it currently stands?
Senior Counsel, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Department of Indigenous Services
No, you would need this act. First nations, under the Indian Act, do have certain bylaw-making powers, but in terms of the minister, in the context of the clause we're talking about now, you would need that act to make those regs.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay. Let's make sure I understand.
At the end of the day, the minister may or may not make make these regulations, and if the minister does make these regulations, then the first nations may opt out.