Evidence of meeting #132 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
I'm not seeing any more debate. Let's move to a vote.
Shall NDP-38 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
(On clause 20)
That takes us to clause 20 and NDP-39.
I'll open the floor to Ms. Idlout.
I may have something to say about this amendment.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik.
NDP-39 was an amendment proposed to us by the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council. It reads that Bill C-61, in clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 12 with the following:
20 (1) The Minister must consult with First Nation governing bodies, in accordance with the consultation policies of the First Nation governing bodies, and provide adequate consultation funding before making any recom‐
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
I'm going to give a ruling on this amendment. The amendment attempts to create an obligation for financing that does not currently exist in the bill. 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.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
With that, I will move on. Before we move to CPC-2, I'll mention that CPC-2 seeks to introduce the concept of co-development, which also appears in CPC-3, CPC-4, CPC-6, CPC-9, CPC-10, and CPC-11. This concept of co-development appears in several amendments. I wanted to bring that to the attention of committee members.
With that, I'll open the floor to Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to move CPC-2. I think, as you alluded to, co-development is an important aspect of this amendment. I think it's fairly straightforward. Clause 20 reads:
The Minister must consult and cooperate with First Nation governing bodies before making any recommendation under subsection 19(1).
CPC-2 aims to take it a step further to ensure that any such recommendation must be co-developed with those first nation governing bodies. The aim here is to ensure that first nation rights are being respected, that first nation voices are being heard. Obviously, this is a piece of legislation that the government has touted as co-developed, or close to being co-developed. We have heard conflicting reports on the accuracy of that statement, Mr. Chair, but we hope that introducing co-development in this process will help to rectify some of that and ensure that first nations are being heard on it.
I'll leave it there. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
I will open this up to debate if there are any members who would like to say something on this.
First I will go to Ms. Idlout, and then Mr. Battiste.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I do support CPC-2. I'm wondering about strengthening it a little bit, based on our earlier conversations today about free, prior and informed consent, and if it would be worth considering adding text regarding free, prior and informed consent into this as a subamendment.
I'm going to look at the preamble really quickly to see what fits from the existing preamble so that I can make sure that we're not adding more cumbersome notes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Ms. Idlout, if you don't mind, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Battiste at this point to make an intervention, and we will come back to you afterwards.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
As I read clause 20, it refers only to subsection19(1), which says, “The Governor in Council may, on the Minister’s recommendation, make regulations”.
None of this is really binding. It seems that we're adding more bureaucracy to a clause that says the minister may make on regulations. While I definitely support the intent, it seems to me that we've already covered this in UNDRIP and with several terms in the bill that say “consult and cooperate”.
This is not a hill I'm willing to die on, because none of this is binding, but could the technicians give us an idea of what the ramifications are of this amendment from the Conservatives?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
“Co-development” is a term similar to other terms that have been discussed at this table that don't necessarily have a clear definition or are situated in other federal law.
I'd also remark that “co-development” does not appear in UNDRIP itself. The terminology used in UNDRIP is really around consultation and co-operation, so for consistency with UNDRIP language, that would be the big consideration around the preference with regard to existing language on consultation and co-operation.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be quick, as I believe the NDP may be preparing a subamendment. I know I can't move a subamendment myself, but I would put on the record that I take no issue with it. I think that a subamendment would add strength, so if that's something that they're looking to do, I would encourage it.
In terms of responding to Mr. Battiste, he is right. According to clause 19, the Governor in Council may make a number of regulations, but even though that wording is not binding, the way I read it is that if the Governor in Council were to make such regulations, there must be consultation, co-operation and co-development. I think that's an important thing, even though the regulations may not come to fruition. If they do, I believe that first nations should be a part of that process.
Co-development, of course, is not mentioned in UNDRIP specifically, but the minister has used it quite a bit, and I think that it is in the spirit of this legislation.
I will leave it at that and look to my colleagues for any further comments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
I'm going to turn it back over to Ms. Idlout and then Mr. Battiste.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I will apologize if my sentence is not very English.
My suggestion would be to add after ”bodies”, “pursuant to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, article 19”, or maybe switch it to “pursuant to article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, free prior and informed consent”, if that makes sense.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
I want to give a brief reminder that all subamendments need to be submitted in writing so that we can have those translated as well.
I'm sorry, Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm okay to not submit the subamendment if it's going to end up requiring more time to get it translated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
In that case, Mr. Battiste, would you like to make an intervention?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
In that case, not seeing any further debate, let's go to a vote.
Shall CPC‑2 carry?
Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
This amendment seeks to increase first nations engagement in these types of processes, so I support it. Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6 ; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
CPC‑2 is carried, which brings us to CPC‑3.
I'll open the floor back up to Mr. Melillo to move that.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, as you mentioned, CPC‑3 is fairly similar to CPC‑2. It's in a different clause or on a different page and seeks to ensure that it's not just consultation and co-operation—which I think are important, of course—but taking it a step further to include co-development.
As I just made the argument for the last clause, I'll end my comments there, and hopefully we can get support to include co-development once again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
With that, I'll open it up for debate. Would anybody like to weigh in at this point?
Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm wondering if the technicians could tell us what the implications of this are on the bill. Could you give us some reasoning as to how you feel this either improves or takes away from the current legislation?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
As it was previously mentioned, the term “co-development” is not necessarily in the UNDRIP declaration, so there might be some inconsistency in language. In terms of how we move forward on those processes to work with first nations to develop those regulations, it would just be an additional component to ensure that we're moving forward with regulations for safe drinking water on first nation lands.