Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor again.

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

How could the amendment be clarified to achieve the objective of allowing communities to have access to data in order to make better decisions, while protecting people's privacy?

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question, again.

Going back to clause 5 on water services principles, I believe it's paragraph 5(1)(e) that provides for that data sharing as well, and then it does have the carve-out for privacy.

That would apply to the entirety of the bill, not just the regulation-making authority. It would provide data sharing additional to what a regulation would provide. Every provision would apply to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Next I will go to Ms. Idlout, and then Mr. Shields.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm just wondering about OCAP and the applicability of OCAP to Bill C-61. I understand that ownership, control, access and possession are already clear.

I wonder if you could respond to that.

[Douglas Fairbairn, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services, Department of Justice]

[Inaudible—Editor] to put forward, OCAP is something that should be complied with. Certainly I think the government looks to OCAP as guidance, but it has not been adopted by the government.

I think there are considerations here that relate to privacy that would fall outside of this provision as it's put forward right now. OCAP would not directly relate to the provision that's been suggested to be amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Ms. Idlout, you still have the floor.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm just wondering, then, if there is a way to work out a subamendment to incorporate OCAP so that BQ-12 could still be considered as a way to use that instrument.

[Douglas Fairbairn]

Right now, there is no requirement that the first nation agree here. One potential approach would be to ensure that the first nation agrees that any information that's going to be provided is agreed upon by the first nation itself.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

Should we submit...?

I'm wondering if we should suspend for a few minutes so that I could work on a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Sure. We can briefly suspend here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

When we left off, we were dealing with a subamendment to BQ-12 that was being put together by Ms. Idlout.

I will hand the floor back over to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik to everyone working together for first nations so that they can have the water that they deserve.

My subamendment to BQ-12 is to remove the word “those” after “provide” and before “data”, and to add “consistent with paragraph (5)(1)(e) and in compliance with ownership, control, access and possession” after the word “community”.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Are there other members who would like to weigh in on this?

Go ahead, Monsieur Lemire.

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

I just want to say that I support putting this in the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I'm not seeing any more interventions, so let's go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to; yeas 6; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to on division)

This takes us to new clause 19.1 and NDP-38.

I will open the floor to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

Because it's my understanding that we're televised now, I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, before I start on amendment NDP-38.

Regarding the amendment process for Bill C-61, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations contacted me to ask me to remove their amendments due to the time it is taking to amend Bill C-61. I respect the will of the Assembly of First Nations and respectfully withdraw those amendments. I will, however, keep the amendments submitted by Independent First Nations out of respect for their jurisdiction over their lands, territories and resources.

The NDP amendment numbers that I'm removing are NDP-42, NDP-43, NDP-46, NDP-48, NDP-49, NDP-57, NDP-58, NDP-61, NDP-63, NDP-66, NDP-75, NDP-79, NDP-2 and NDP-3.

Regarding the next amendment, NDP-38 was submitted by the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations.

It reads as follows:

That Bill C-61 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 12 the following new clause:

19.1 If affected First Nation governing bodies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to collaborate in the policy development leading to the making of the regulations, the Governor in Council may make regulations providing for any matter relating to the application of this Act or respecting water services on First Nation lands.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I open it up for debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

The government sees this as already following UNDRIP, which is in the legislation.

We see this as redundant. It just adds an extra layer of unneeded bureaucracy, so we're going to be voting against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Melillo is next.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree somewhat that this is already covered.

However, I'm curious. I'll ask the officials about the wording “afforded a meaningful opportunity”. I don't want to get bogged down. We've done this a few times in the committee.

How would you view a first nations governing body being “afforded a meaningful opportunity” in practice?

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

Thanks for the question.

As in many conversations I've had at this table, the litmus test would be unclear, but there is clear language throughout the bill that talks about consultation and co-operation. I would see that as part of an analogous term that could be applied here.

Also, I'll point to subclause 5(3), which talks about “free, prior and informed consent” as a guiding light already entrenched.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I don't want to put you on the spot, but I guess that's why you're here. Would you agree with Mr. Battiste's characterization that this would create some redundancy?

[Nelson Barbosa]

I don't so much agree, but I would say that subclause 5(3) covers some of the conditions outlined in this proposed amendment.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.