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

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

Before I amend it, can you take a pause to confirm with your folks?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm reading the comment. That is the latest. The motion that just passed has to be reported to the House.

[A voice]

It's to be reported to the House.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

That's correct.

I'm sorry. I only have one copy, and it's on my screen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you so much, Mr. Schmale.

Members should have that in their email at this point.

Next, I see that Mr. Battiste has his hand up.

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

I think the first nations clean water legislation should take priority.

There have been some conversations, and I think everyone is on board with an amendment: After “December 6”, add “or immediately following the completion and reporting back of Bill C-61 to the House.”

That's the period. The clerks have told us that we can expect that from the end of line-by-line, when we're done with this in the House and with the amendments and translations, it will take no more than a week. It works with the calendar year we have and the motion as presented in the House, I believe.

That's the amendment. Do we need it in writing, or can we pass it by unanimous consent? After “December 6”, it's “or immediately following the completion and reporting back of Bill C-61 to the House.”

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Does it start November 25 that the chair...?

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

Yes.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay, that's perfect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thanks for moving that amendment, Mr. Battiste. It looks like there's unanimous agreement in the committee.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The motion presented by Mr. Schmale is amended.

Is there any debate on the motion as amended? Is there agreement around the table for that to pass?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

That's great.

With that, let's get back to the task at hand and continue the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-61.

(On clause 19)

We were about to consider amendment BQ-12.

I will open up the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that NDP‑37 was withdrawn, but at the last meeting, during the debate on BQ‑11, the committee members seemed to prefer, by consensus, NDP‑37. The NDP has just withdrawn the amendment, but I would ask that we vote on it anyway, because I think it could be adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

My understanding is that in order to do that, we will need unanimous consent to go back to that amendment. I want to make sure that there is unanimous consent around the table to go back to consideration of it.

Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Just to clarify, they're asking us to go back to BQ-11. Is that correct?

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

No, I'm talking about NDP‑37.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

It's NDP-37, yes.

Seeing that there is unanimous consent here, we can go back to the consideration of NDP-37.

First we'll start with debate.

Is there any debate on NDP-37?

There is not. We can go to a vote shortly, then.

Monsieur Lemire, we passed a unanimous consent motion to return to considering NDP-37, as it was withdrawn. We have unanimous consent to reconsider it, and we're going to a vote.

Shall NDP-37 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor on BQ‑12.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, the purpose of our amendment is to enable first nations to analyze their data in order to obtain the best possible assurances for their community's infrastructure, which is important. We know that access to any data is very difficult for first nations, be it their medical data, insurance data or other data. It's important for first nations to be able to have data about their own populations.

That's not possible currently. I sincerely believe that this legislation would allow first nations to have better access to data, and therefore better governance. In addition, first nations digital sovereignty would make it possible to develop more affordable insurance products and improve asset management, among other things.

It should also be mentioned that it's not a matter of personal information, but of access to data, which is fundamental.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

We will begin the debate.

Mrs. Atwin, you have the floor.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly I see what the amendment is trying to achieve, but we see in the “Principles” section, under paragraph 5(1)(e), that it has additional language that protects privacy. I think that's the consideration here that I would be most concerned about. There are existing provisions in the bill that allow for that protection, so I'm just worried about those privacy implications with the way it's worded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

If I may, I would like to ask the officials about the scope of the proposed amendment.

I don't think the amendment breaches confidentiality. Community leaders don't need to know people's names and contact information. They need factual information on aspects related to the health of their community so that they can ensure better governance for their people.

[Rebecca Blake, Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services]

I appreciate the question.

The amendment is worded in a way that is quite broad, so it doesn't necessarily provide for those privacy protections that are already provided in clause 5 of the bill.

I'm just noting that the language in the amendment is broad, so it could be interpreted as including private information.