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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Great. The subamendment has been moved. Is there any debate around the table? Not seeing any debate, let's move this to a vote.
(Subamendment agreed to on division)
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 25 as amended agreed to on division)
That takes us to new clause 25.1.
We're now looking at amendment BQ‑19.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Okay. I hadn't marked that down. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendment BQ‑19 is basically to increase transparency by ensuring that the information is easily accessible on the government website. This will give the first nations more tools to make free and informed decisions.
Liberal
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
It's a new clause. It's quite substantial.
In clause 9 of the bill, it already reads, “A First Nation governing body that makes a First Nation law must, as soon as feasible after it makes the law, publish it on its or on the First Nation’s website, if any, and in the First Nations Gazette.” There is a process in the bill that was already developed specifically by first nations partners and with their language. Because of that, I would be opposed to this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
Is there any other debate? Not seeing any other hands up, we can move this to a vote.
Shall BQ-19 carry?
It looks like we don't have agreement, so it won't carry on division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Okay. We'll go to a recorded division.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 26)
The first amendment we have here is NDP‑50. Also, I will just mention that I will have something to say if NDP‑50 is moved.
With that, I'll open the floor up to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
NDP-50 was a submission that had several first nations speaking to it.
It seeks to improve Bill C-61 by amending clause 26. Bill C-61, in clause 26, is to be amended by replacing lines 30 to 32 on page 14 with the following:
The Minister must ensure through funding that access to clean and safe drinking water,
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout. Unfortunately, I need to make a ruling on NDP-50.
The amendment attempts to create an obligation for financing that does not currently exist in the bill.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, which imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
That said, this moves us to PV-3, which is deemed moved.
I would also like to welcome Mr. Morrice back to the committee.
I'll pass the floor over to you.
Before doing that, I'll mention that if PV-3 is adopted, PV-4, NDP-53, NDP-54, NDP-51, NDP-52 and PV-5 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
With that, Mr. Morrice, the floor is yours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Gladly. It was PV-4, NDP-51, NDP-52, NDP-53, NDP-54 and PV-5.
With that, Mr. Morrice, we'll go to you.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As I've shared in my past interventions on Bill C-61, these are two more amendments, PV-3 and PV-4, that have come directly from Six Nations of the Grand River. They're specific to the section of the bill that we heard from Chief Hill on significantly and, I understand, from many others in their testimony to this committee with respect to the insufficient current language of “best efforts”.
The current bill reads:
The Minister, in consultation and cooperation with a First Nation governing body, must make best efforts to ensure that access to clean and safe drinking water, 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.
Both PV-3 and PV-4 seek to remove the wording “must make best efforts” and simply replace them with the requirement that the minister “must ensure”. PV-3 includes more specificity about what a building is, including homes.
I'll note that MP Idlout has very similar amendments, all of which also get rid of that language, so it looks like members of the committee members have multiple options for preferred text to follow what they heard from Six Nations of the Grand River and many others to improve the language of this bill, to meet what we heard quite a bit, which is that a “best effort” to provide safe drinking water isn't good enough. We must follow through on that. This is a bill that gives the Government of Canada the opportunity to do that.
PV-4, which follows, is a briefer version of the same, which simply removes the words “make best efforts”.
As I said earlier, MP Idlout has also provided several other options. I'm sure she'll be speaking to you.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.
With PV-3 moved, we'll open it up to debate.
Mrs. Atwin has her hand up.
I'll go to you first, Mrs. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Morrice, for joining us.
We did. We heard significantly, from many of our witnesses, about the term “best efforts”. I, too, kind of question that language—where it's coming from and what the intentions are. I also completely understand the distrust that exists, of course, among first nation communities and membership, regarding relationships with the government as a colonial entity.
However, I have come to learn, through legal precedent, that “best efforts” is actually the strongest language we have to ensure that what we want to achieve in Bill C-61 is met. Therefore, I think it's stronger to keep “best efforts”. I worry that removing it actually weakens things, because it's not covering all the bases to ensure it is met.
We also have the piece around human rights in the bill, as I mentioned before. It's an additional layer. I'm concerned that will force the Government of Canada to intervene on first nation lands in situations that would be best left to specific first nation communities. On surveilling those specific buildings you're mentioning...I'm just not sure about the mechanics of that and what that would look like. Again, I go back to the idea that “best efforts” is the strongest possible language we have in legal terms today.
I hope I'm getting that correctly. Maybe I could refer to our legal expert here and the officials.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services, Department of Justice
“Best efforts” is a fairly high standard. It's certainly higher than “reasonable efforts”, which was the term used in the safe drinking water settlement agreement, for example, from 2021.
Without “best efforts”, though.... “Ensure” is slightly higher than “best efforts”. “Must ensure” would be a greater obligation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
Are there any further interventions?
Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm wondering, technically, what the similarities and differences will be between NDP-51, NDP-52, NDP-53, NDP-54 and NDP-55 if we pass PV-4. I can't do the analysis quickly enough by myself to determine whether I want to support PV-4. I wonder if we could get advice from the experts about those provisions.
Depending on the responses, I will also submit a subamendment I submitted before, if we pass PV-3.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I'm sorry. If the question is to compare and contrast, I'd turn it back to the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I think the question asked was how PV-3 compares with the other related amendments that all deal with the same paragraph. Those would be PV-4, NDP-53, NDP-54, NDP-51, NDP-52 and PV-5. It's a very simple question.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks. I appreciate the question.
Maybe I'll start at the beginning and focus on PV-3, at the end here.
How this reads to me in isolation is that it would compel a first nation. A first nation must provide clean water for all residents in their home. This is binding on a first nation, not on Canada. It would have an ancillary effect on Canada, but this would compel first nations' action.
I also feel that—to take us back to day one or day two—we enshrined.... In this proposed legislation, there is already a domestic right for first nations to have access to clean drinking water. I would be concerned about the competing factor there. The precedent in law would be historic if the passed G-1 in this legislation becomes enshrined in law. I feel that is a very significant bar. I haven't done the legal analysis, and I'm not a lawyer to compare and contrast those things. However, the bar is very high because of G-1. It's enshrining, for the first time ever, a domestic right for all first nations to have clean and safe drinking water.
I could stand corrected. I apologize to the chair, but this seems to be binding on a first nations government body to provide those actions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
I see Mr. Morrice has his hand up, so we'll go to him.