Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

It adds “up-to-date”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

The English versions are identical, but there is a slight error in the French translation, so that's why there's a new NDP-62.

Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

The only thing I would say is that the idea of “up-to-date” may not.... In many cases, new and innovative technology is more efficient and preferable, but in other cases other methods may be preferable, depending on remote areas, the quality and integrity of newer products, trust and familiarity with systems.

It's prescriptive, the only piece, but ultimately it's splitting hairs at this point.

Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

Is there any other debate on new NDP-62?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

This takes us to G-7.

I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

G-7 is as follows. I move that Bill C-61, in clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 10 on page 16 with the following:

(5) The Minister must complete the framework referred to in subsection (1) no later than the first anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force or the last day of any longer period requested by the Minister or First Nations governing bodies.

This offers the option of extending conversations between first nations and the Government of Canada if the prescribed timelines do not allow for the true co-development of the funding framework. This language still acknowledges the importance of setting that timeline to co-develop the funding framework but creates more flexibility for partners, which is something we heard directly from committee witnesses.

It's important to have this option available. The Government of Canada delayed introducing this bill because of the deadline set as part of the 2022 settlement agreement. There were still pieces that needed to be worked through with first nations partners.

On the day of introduction, former regional chief Glen Hare had this to say about the importance of having this flexibility:

I guess a number of us were ready to move forward on this. I hear your question but we also weren’t ready a couple of times either and we asked for an extension from the government and we got it. I’ve got to rely on our legal people too. I’m not up on our rightsholders too. They wanted some things in this document. I was disappointed a few months ago when it got delayed a second time but now we’re here today and I want to believe we can do something positive now. It’s with the support of the people, not Glen, not the Minister. But they asked for a delay and we got it and we did a lot of good work since then.

Really, it's just building in that flexibility, if they requested that time frame, so that we would be able to grant that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

G-7 has been moved. I will just note that if G-7 is adopted, CPC-11 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Not seeing any debate, let's go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

As mentioned, CPC-11 cannot be moved, so that will take us to NDP-64.

I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

NDP-64 is an amendment that was submitted by the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations.

It reads that Bill C-61, in clause 27, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 16 the following:

(6) Within six months after the day on which any regulations made under subsection 19(1) come into force, the Minister must, in cooperation with First Nation governing bodies, update the framework for assessing needs referred to in subsection (1) to account for such regulations, as required.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

NDP-64 has been moved.

I'll open it up to debate, starting with Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the officials.

Can you quickly clarify whether putting this six-month time frame on it would in any way limit the consultation process for first nations?

[Nelson Barbosa]

I think the time limitation may limit the space for collaboration for first nations coming forward.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Melillo.

Is there further debate?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Shall clause 27 as amended carry?

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings)

Instead of going to the short title and preamble, I think we should first go to NDP-24 and new clause 14.1. I understand the translation is now done. The translation should be in your inboxes momentarily.

When we left off, Ms. Idlout had the floor. I'm going to turn the floor over to Ms. Idlout. I assume we'll go to Mr. Battiste after that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

As I mentioned earlier, NDP-24 looks to make an improvement by adding new clause 14.1, which reads as follows:

The quality of water and source water available on the First Nation lands of a First Nation and in a protection zone under the jurisdiction of that First Nation must at least meet the First Nation's needs for the purpose of exercising its Aboriginal and treaty rights, among other purposes.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Moving to debate, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Battiste.

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

I think the subamendment I've offered is acceptable to the government, now that we have an understanding of what a protection zone is.

It says, after “under the jurisdiction of that First Nation must”:

be consistent with the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

Then it's back to “among other purposes.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

A subamendment to NDP-24 has been moved.

I want to turn it to our legislative clerk for one second here, before going further.

[Michelle Legault]

I want to convey to the committee a note that the legislative translators sent along with the translation. They suggest removing “among other purposes” at the end of the subamendment.

It would be to remove the words “entre autres choses” from the French version. This is a suggestion from legislative translators, who see rights as neither things nor goals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

That subamendment has been moved. Is there any debate on the subamendment?

I want to clarify—the subamendment that's been moved has now taken off the very last three words, “among other purposes”.

In the French text, it is “entre autres choses”.

Let's go to a vote if there's no more debate.

(Subamendment agreed to on division)

(Amendment as amended agreed to on division)

That takes us to the short title.

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Before we get to the short title, I seem to recall that I was going to ask a question based on the response that we got from the Liberals and the case law that they cited. We haven't had that discussion yet. I do feel, quite strongly, that we need to have that discussion, because that information was given to us quite late. I have questions, based on the information that was given to us earlier today, that I feel need to be answered. I'm trying to recall which provision number it was when I asked about that contract law case that was shared with us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Battiste.

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

I just texted you the case. The case is Atmospheric Diving Systems Inc. v. International Hard Suits Inc. and Can-Dive Services Ltd., British Columbia Supreme Court, J. Dorgan, heard on November 16-20, 1992. It's just been texted to you for your CanLII references. I think that's what you referred to, and you now have that information.

I received that information from the INAN email. I know that we get a lot of them, so we probably didn't click on every single one, but it was definitely sent to us. I texted that to you. I believe that's the case that is referred to.

If I'm wrong, officials, please let me know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Chair.

I did receive that information, and it raised more questions for me, knowing, for example, that Canada has a fiduciary duty to first nations. Because of that fiduciary duty, they have a legal obligation, for example, to act in the best interest of first nations. The Crown should act in the best interest of indigenous people. The Crown must act with honour, integrity, good faith and fairness. It acknowledges that there's a special relationship, and that fiduciary duty should have the foundation of ensuring that there is work towards reconciliation. Knowing that Canada has this fiduciary duty, my question to the witnesses is, does “best efforts” not lower the standards of its fiduciary duty to first nations?