Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just need to correct Mr. Barbosa. I'll read the beginning of clause 26. I think Mr. Barbosa might recognize that it starts on line 2 of the clause. I'll read it out again so that we're all clear. This does not put any additional responsibility on the first nation; rather, this is about the duties of the minister.

Line 1 reads, “The Minister, in consultation and cooperation with”, and the amendment would change it to “First Nation governing body”, so it would read, “The Minister, in consultation and cooperation with a First Nation governing body, must” and then go on with, “ensure that all residents, legal occupants and users of buildings”.

We also just heard from Mr. Fairbairn that the legal precedent is that “must ensure” would put a higher level of responsibility on the Government of Canada than “make best efforts” would. I believe, to MP Idlout's question, every one of the next few amendments switches to that “must ensure” in place of “make best efforts”.

There are various additional words in PV-3, speaking to the amendment I brought forward. There's additional clarity on what a “building” is versus.... I'm sorry. That's PV-3. PV-4 is simpler. It would replace “make best efforts” with the minister “must ensure”.

I hope that provides clarity for you, Chair, and members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much. Mr. Morrice.

I don't see any further debate.

Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mike, where you've added “legal occupants” versus “occupants”, can you just explain that?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes. In PV-3, the Six Nations of the Grand River was looking to ensure that the Government of Canada understood that homes be included. I can read out PV-3.

Rather than simply saying, “from a public or private water system”, PV-3 goes on to explain it's for “all residents, legal occupants and users of buildings”, and then has an additional “greater certainty” that “the buildings referred to” in that earlier section “include homes”. It goes on to share “uses of water” in homes.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I certainly get that, but you've added “legal” before “occupants”, which wasn't previously there. What does that refer to? How do you define a “legal occupant” of a first nation home?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's a great question. I would welcome a friendly amendment if other members of the committee feel that “legal occupant” is unnecessary, or I can turn to witnesses. The word “legal” could be removed if that is seen as problematic for members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Okay.

Next, I have Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

I'm looking at PV-3 and NDP-51. Just as an example, in PV-3, it reads:

must ensure that all residents, legal occupants and users of buildings located on the First Nation lands of the First Nation have regular access to clean and safe drinking water in those buildings.

The first part focuses on buildings. It continues:

(2) For greater certainty, the buildings referred to in subsection (1) include homes, and having “regular access to clean and safe drinking water” in relation to a resident’s or legal occupant’s home refers to having, in such a home, drinking water of a quality and quantity sufficient for all usual and necessary uses of water as in a similarly situated non-Indigenous home

This one focuses on homes, whereas I see NDP-51 reading differently. It reads:

First Nation governing body, must ensure that

(a) access to clean and safe drinking water of a quality that meets the standard set out in section 14, whether from a public or private water system, is provided to all residents, occupants and users of buildings located on the First Nation lands of the First Nation;

(b) access to water of a quantity that meets the standard set out in section 15 is available on the First Nation lands of the First Nation; and

(c) wastewater effluent treatment meets the standard set out in section 16 so that all residents, occupants and users of buildings located on the First Nation lands of the First Nation can benefit from it.

For me, NDP-51 seems to be quite different from PV-3 because NDP-51 talks about standards and the standards that need to be met. I don't understand how it could be ruled that, if we vote in favour of PV-3, we wouldn't be able to vote for NDP-51.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Let me just quickly check into those. There is PV-3, and then there is.... My understanding is that there is a line conflict in the actual legislation, so it would amend something that would change that one. Just to make sure I understand that correctly, are you asking why NDP-53 and NDP-54 would not be able to be moved if we vote in favour of PV-3?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

It's all of them. You said PV-4, NDP-51, NDP-52, NDP-53, NDP-54 and PV-5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Yes. Those all make amendments related to the same paragraph, and there's a line conflict there, so those ones wouldn't be able to be moved.

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Based on that input from MP Idlout, I would agree with her that NDP-51 would offer stronger language. For that reason, I'm happy to withdraw PV-3 and move us to discussion on PV-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Morrice.

In order for that to be done, given that it has been moved, we'll need unanimous consent from members of the committee. I want to make sure that amongst the committee we have unanimous consent for Mr. Morrice to withdraw PV-3.

I'm not seeing any disagreement.

(Amendment withdrawn)

PV-3 is withdrawn, so that takes us to PV-4, which is automatically deemed moved. Since PV-4 is deemed moved, NDP-53, NDP-54, NDP-51 and NDP-52 cannot be moved because they're identical.

Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you Chair.

PV-4 gets at the same input from Six Nations of the Grand River, which is specifically to remove “best efforts”. We've heard from witnesses from the department that removing “best efforts” increases the responsibility of the Government of Canada to “must ensure”.

I think the interest of Six Nations of the Grand River was for any of these options that increases that responsibility. Should it be PV-4 or any of the NDP amendments that follow, the larger interest was to increase that level of responsibility, as we also heard from other first nation witnesses at this committee, with this being a real opportunity, in this legislation, for the government to ensure that safe and clean drinking water is provided.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

I'll open it up to debate.

Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Could you remind me again? If we pass PV-4, which amendments wouldn't be able to be debated?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

It would be NDP-53, NDP-54, NDP-51 and NDP-52.

Just to clarify here, NDP-53 and NDP-54 are identical to PV-4, but there is a line conflict with NDP-51 and NDP-52. If this were to pass, then those ones wouldn't be able to be moved.

Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Could it be explained to us what the line conflicts are and what the difference is between NDP-51 and PV-4? What would the practical effect be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Those are two questions. Number one is about the line conflict, so we'll address that first. We'll then turn it over to our witnesses to speak to the difference in the legal effect that they would have.

The conflict is line 31 on page 14. They all address that same line.

I will turn it over to our witnesses here to speak to the differences of those different amendments that were put forward.

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

The significant difference is really in NDP-51. It has many more details in terms of qualifying the provision of safe drinking water and on what terms. It's more constrained than open-ended in the other amendment, PV-4.

I would also note that all these efforts would be implemented through funding, which could create some considerations for Parliament when allocating funds, just so folks are aware. There is also the consideration around self-determination, as the spirit of this bill is really to support first nations in advancing their visions of self-determination. This would provide a more active role for the minister versus a less active role for the minister in a first nation-determined vision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I see Mr. Morrice has his hand up, so we'll go to him next.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I just want to clarify the wording here. This is not about roles. We heard from Ms. Blake just now about roles. This is in a section on “Powers, Duties and Functions of Minister”. Specifically, the text is about the minister accomplishing a thing, in this case, “must make best efforts to ensure that”.

I think it's important to clarify that this is not the text that we have in front of us here. Any of the amendments that follow, whether it's PV-4 or the NDP ones that follow, are clarifying a responsibility of the minister, rather than taking any self-determination away from a first nation. I guess I would turn to the witness to clarify if that's the claim in the bill.

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the precision on language, and I agree. We're in the section on powers and duties, so I was just using a synonym with the word “role”, but I agree with you, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

Ms. Idlout, we'll turn the floor back to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I seek a very quick clarification. If we pass PV-4, we can't debate NDP-51. Is that correct?