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

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Longfield.

Next I go to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I forget what my question was going to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We can come back.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I am listening very intently to this important discussion and the concerns about setting such a high bar, especially when we have provinces with leadership like that in Alberta, which I think would never proudly meet with the first nations.

I see that CPC-4 looks to amend the current subclause 21(2). Subclause 21(2) is already about:

the Minister must consult and cooperate with First Nation governing bodies, federal ministers and the governments of the provinces and territories.

Therefore, I do appreciate what the current bill already provides for.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

We go to Mr. Shields next.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the discussion, the input and the difference of opinions.

I would look at a couple of examples. The dental plan is a negotiated one. Child care was negotiated with provinces individually; the federal government has been working through that process, and I think they've come to a lot of agreements with provinces individually, rather than with all as one.

Regarding the challenge that some people might feel that co-operation to develop agreements is problematic, I think that the co-operation is essential on this particular issue, as with policing. The federal government is now working with indigenous and provincial governments to establish different policing models across the country. Again, it is a co-operative attempt to deal with the policing issues, which are urgent, and indigenous and provincial representatives are coming to the table with the federal government to develop different policing models.

There are examples of that happening trilaterally across the country, and, as I say, the federal government has been attempting to do that one-on-one in specific programs with provinces across the country and is establishing agreements on different programs that they're setting up.

I'm a little more optimistic than maybe some people are. Especially on this particular topic, I think there is more consensus about coming to the table to work on an agreement. I'm of the belief that a co-operative agreement is a better agreement than a mandated one or one without a partnership. We've talked about partnerships a lot here on this particular issue, and I think partnerships make for a better agreement and a longer-lasting agreement and are a much better approach than excluding people from them.

I'm a little more optimistic than some people might be on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find that co-developing elements of regulations is a matter of principle. Particularly when it comes to environmental issues and protected areas, I think it's fundamental that first nations be part of that co-development.

That's why we're going to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Battiste, I'll go to you next.

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

I'm 100% in favour of co-development with first nations. The problem is it's the first nations' water, and they have the motivation to want to come to the table because it's their water. It's talking about their fishing rights and it's talking about their access to clean water. We heard from witnesses who were in tears and who talked about the poisoning of the very waters in which their children were swimming in Alberta.

If we're not just asking for co-development from first nations but also for co-development from a province that could walk away and say it's not coming to the table because of jobs, industry or political reasons, as a first nations person, I'll say that this defeats the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here in protecting the water sources they're connected to.

If there's an amendment we could come to that says that first nations.... I'm happy to have a strong co-development aspect of it, if that's what it takes, but to give the province the ability to not come to the table and say it's not going to come to the table because it doesn't feel this is necessary would allow first nations' water sources to be poisoned like they've been poisoned for the past 100 years. The entire intent of this legislation is to ensure that the first nations who live on reserve and who have been abandoned many times by the provinces for corporate gain.... I would think that this would be at the heart of what this bill is trying to prevent.

I just need to be clear that first nations across Canada and the first nations I've talked to are agreeing is a standard we need to put above co-operation and consultation. I want the provinces to be involved and I want them to have a say, but I don't want them to have a veto over whether they can poison first nations communities' water or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

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

I understand my colleague's concern about the situation in Alberta, which is relevant, but the territorial aspect is also important. Water is also under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, so I think that's another reason to vote in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I'm not seeing any other debate. Why don't we go to....

Go ahead, Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we can go back a bit, I know that Mr. Zimmer asked whether this bill is required to have clean drinking water. As we know, there are water treatment plants being built. There are design phases and feasibility studies for the ones that remain. What does the bill do? Can you reiterate that for us again?

You went through those three core principles, but I think it's really important that we all understand what we're doing and what this bill actually will afford to indigenous communities. I just would like to hear your response on that.

[Nelson Barbosa]

For additional clarification, I think that first nations are the only jurisdictions in Canada that have no regulatory or standards regimes, so while there is clean water in many first nations and there's been tremendous success due to first nations' efforts, more can be done through legislation.

Again, the three things that occur to me are affirmation of self-government for law-making for, on, in or under first nations land for water and waste water. That's paramount objective number one. Paramount objective two is sewing up the only regulatory and standards gaps this country has on the provision of water, which is on first nations lands. The third is to encourage and create a legislative space for provinces, territories and first nations to come together, through consultation and co-operation, to protect waters that flow and affect all Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Go ahead, Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Supplemental to that, Mr. Battiste mentioned Pictou Landing, for example, in Nova Scotia.

If this bill had been enforced under the form we are working from, would they have had more tools to protect their community from the implications of that kind of industry and how it affected their clean water?

[Nelson Barbosa]

There are currently no legislative tools to provide a space to align laws in the water context. Therefore, in the case of Pictou Landing and many others that committee members heard from—in Alberta, Ontario and beyond—had that space been afforded, had there been alignment of laws and a broader protection scheme that considered first nations' needs and the needs of provinces and territories, we could be looking at a vastly different Canada, where waters are safer. That is the intent.

Now, there's no guarantee that this legislation will lead to those things, but it is attempting to entrench in law a space to bring people and parties together with a single intent: safe water.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm not seeing any more debate.

Let's go to a vote, and then after we'll take a brief health break.

We'll do a recorded division.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're going to take a brief health break, but we'll be back in five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We left off on amendments on clause 21. The next amendment is CPC-5. This is the new CPC-5. This would have been circulated by email yesterday. For your awareness, the reference number for this is 13427322.

With that, I'll open the floor up to Mr. Melillo for the new CPC-5.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to CPC-5 and to move CPC-5.

I think it's an important amendment toward ensuring that first nation rights are protected, as well as understanding what a clear definition of protection zone would be and that the agreement of provinces and territories is absolutely critical to ensuring a smooth process in the development of that.

Pertaining to the protection zone, the amendment would read as follows:

(3) A regulation made under subsection (1) must not come into force unless the Minister has obtained free, prior and informed consent of First Nation governing bodies and the consent of the governments of the provinces and territories.

Mr. Chair, there's been a lot of discussion about this amendment during our various pauses throughout the day. I understand that there also may be a subamendment coming to address some of that language to make it more clear.

I encourage all colleagues around the table to support this amendment. I think it reinforces free, prior and informed consent in UNDRIP, which, of course, is already Canadian law, and will add extra affirmation for provinces and territories to ensure that in regard to any land that may be provincially governed, or any Crown land at this point in time, that could fall into a protection zone, those relevant provinces and territories are at the table to have agreement on what that definition will be.

I'll leave it there for now, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

First we're going to go to Mr. Shields and then to Mr. Battiste.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a subamendment. I would like to take out the word "consent" and put in the word "agreement".

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.

I want to remind you that all the subamendments need to be circulated in writing. Members should have that very shortly.

It seems fairly clear to me, but while we're waiting for that, why don't we start the debate on it?

Mr. Battiste, do you want to make an intervention on that or on the subamendment?