Evidence of meeting #133 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.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I mean, I appreciate the insistence to fight. I mean, it's bizarre—
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
It's not a fight. Do you have an answer or not? You don't—
NDP
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I understand his insistence certainly towards me. It is bizarre that a first nations person is trying to water down his rights.
In saying that, the justice department has been very clear. I'll read the definition into the record again. We have a definition. I can read the whole definition from the federal justice department:
References to “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) are found throughout the Declaration. They emphasize the importance of recognizing and upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples and ensuring that there is effective and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them [and] their communities....
There are three things that you must have for free, prior and informed consent. One is “free from manipulation”. This is certainly not what has occurred in the water legislation. When we meet a chief today who hasn't even heard about the legislation, who is getting second-hand information about what its intent is and where it's at in terms of meeting UNDRIP standards, that is manipulation or coercion. It's “We need to pass this bill really fast or it's not going to happen. We need to push this bill through even if it doesn't meet UNDRIP standards.” It's threatening, and that would be coercion. That would be threats.
Also, it must be “informed by adequate and timely information”. Informed is knowing what you're actually agreeing to. The chief we met today didn't even know about the bill.
There's also “prior”. That has not happened with the bill. That's why it's so important that we have free, prior and informed consent in this bill. It's because first nations people need to have protection from this kind of behaviour.
Even with this water bill, where first nations are being placed in a position to accept a bill that doesn't meet UNDRIP standards or we have to worry about clean drinking water, that very behaviour in itself is why we need free, prior and informed consent. How do you do that? By doing all of those things. That's very clear to me. That's the international definition. I'm not making these things up. It's also consistent with the UN expert mechanism.
We have a path forward. The question is whether this government is going to throw the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous people in the toilet, or it is serious about reconciliation.
That's my answer, through you, Chair. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Members, please remember to direct your interventions through the chair.
Not seeing any further debate here, I think we can go to a vote.
First, we need to vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 22 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 23)
This takes us to clause 23 and NDP-44.
At this point, I'll open up the floor to the NDP for NDP-44.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We're on clause 23. The first amendment we have under clause 23 is NDP-44.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
NDP-44 is an amendment that was submitted to us by the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council in their request to have article 23 amended. The wording they have suggested to improve this bill would replace line 29 on page 13 with the following:
(2) The agreement must include
It would also add after line 3 on page 14 the following:
(c) plans and policies that address water, source water, clean and safe drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-44 has been moved, so I'll open the floor up for debate.
Does any member wish to make an intervention?
Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
We're trying to find it in the notes here. We can't seem to find it. Do you want to give us a quick second?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Colleagues, let's resume this meeting.
Mr. Battiste had the floor. There was some confusion here. We were starting the debate of NDP-44.
I just want to open the floor up to anyone who would like to intervene.
Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'm certainly okay with the (c) part of it, addressing additional possible things that could be found in an agreement.
However, the key to this piece is the “may”, because it's giving them the power to create whatever they want in that agreement, but the “must” is telling them exactly what they have to do. I can't take the “must” part, but (c) is good with me.
I noticed my cheeks are very red. We're doing lots of hard work here, folks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.
I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I would be willing to consider a subamendment to replace the word “must” with “may”.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
However, the amendment was to change “may” to “must”. Keep the (c), but also keep the “may”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
It looks like there's general agreement on that. I'm just quickly seeing if there's a way we can do that without having to go through translation with all this, so just wait one minute here.
Thank you. We're back.
I just want to make sure that there is agreement among the committee members for the subamendment, which would essentially delete the amendment's part (a). That would thereby change it to what it was originally, which is, “The agreement may include”, instead of what was proposed in this amendment, which says, “The agreement must include”.
Is there agreement around the table?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
It keeps the (c), yes, but it just gets rid of the paragraph (a).
Great. It looks like we have unanimous consent.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This takes us to NDP-45.
I'll open up the floor to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
NDP-45 was submitted to us by the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. They suggested that clause 23 can be improved by adding subclause (3), which I will read right now:
(3) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection (1) is to be construed as preventing a First Nation governing body from entering into an agreement with the Treasury Board to support the exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in section 6 or for the purposes of sections 24 and 25.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-45 has been moved. Is there any debate?
Ms. Atwin.