Evidence of meeting #134 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.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I apologize, because I know I'm not speaking to one of my amendments, but I missed it when Jenica said the name of the case, so I'd appreciate that being repeated.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Mrs. Atwin, would you be willing to circulate that to the committee here?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Colleagues, we're back.
The requested court judgment has been circulated to folks. We did pause briefly when Ms. Idlout had the floor, so we'll open it back up to Ms. Idlout as we are debating NDP‑60.
I'll just hand the floor over to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm sorry. I don't see it yet in my email, but I don't want to delay the rest of clause-by-clause. What I would like to suggest is that we stand—I think that's how I say it—the debate on clause 27 so that we can move on with the remainder of clause-by-clause faster and then come back to it, because even when the rest of the MPs receive the text that Jenica read to us, I'm still going to need my team to analyze it to see what that standard means.
I would like to buy a bit of time for that analysis. I do not want to suspend indefinitely, but I would ask that we stand it so that we can move to the other clauses as a way to expedite this since there seems to be such a big rush to get through it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
Ms. Idlout has proposed or moved to stand clause 27. This will go to a vote, but if we decide to do that, it will mean that we'll stand this and come to this at the end, which would mean NDP‑60, NDP-62, NDP-63, G‑7 and CBC‑11 and NDP‑64 would be stood and we would come back to them at the very end.
This is debatable, if there's anybody who wants to debate this right now. Is there agreement that we'll stand this clause and come back to it at the end?
(Clause 27 allowed to stand)
That will take us to new clause 27.1 and G‑8.
I'll just give you a moment to get prepared because I know we did skip ahead a number of things here. I'll open the floor up to Ms. Atwin.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a new clause, and it's responding to the discussions that we had regarding treaty rights, which are incredibly important. I believe if we had upheld our responsibilities we wouldn't be in this conversation currently. However, there were amendments put forward that introduced different concepts of the bill that could also put it into jeopardy, I believe, as far as our outcome and our goals for Bill C-61 specifically are concerned.
What this amendment sets out to achieve is that it's setting the stage for future implementation of the recognition of those treaty rights by following additional review from first nations and the Government of Canada. It's really important that, again, it respects the importance of the treaty relationship, as heard by first nation witnesses at our committee, while ensuring that treaty rights will absolutely be implemented thoughtfully and appropriately.
The amendment is that Bill C-61 be amended by adding, after line 10 on page 16, the following:
27.1 The minister must, in consultation and cooperation with First Nation governing bodies, conduct a study of the asserted treaty right to water.
Again, it uses consultation and co-operation, which is in alignment with the language in UNDRIP, and it also, again, compels the government to do that study, which I think is a bit of a compromise and a nice place to land that, again, brings the importance of those treaty rights into this discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.
G‑8 has been moved.
I'll open the floor up to debate.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are in favour of the principle, but doesn't the minister already have that information? If so, why is such a provision necessary? That seems to me to be basic information that a minister must have. Is that the case?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
This clause would really.... The desire is to do it in consultation and co-operation with first nations, as there are a myriad of views on the asserted treaty right to water, as well as potentially some modern-day treaties that include that right specifically. That's also in terms of our minister's colleague, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who really has that core relationship. The government does have a lot of that information, but in terms of the views, the oral promises, all those components, those are often passed down generation to generation from first nations and are not necessarily in the possession of Canada.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
So we're talking about better communications, but on both sides, which I think is legitimate.
Thank you.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik. I struggle with this amendment. It seems to be an amendment in which there's an extension of what a minister must do regarding asserted treaty rights.
I wonder if you could better explain how this amendment would impact how we view asserted treaty rights and how it would impact first nations' ability to argue regarding asserted treaty rights. Why does there need to be a bill or an amendment for the minister to conduct a study?
I struggle to support it because it seems like it has the potential to take away from first nations, who feel strongly about what their treaty rights are.
If you could answer my three questions, I would very much appreciate it.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate your questions. In terms of a study and how that would propose....
I'll let my colleague at Justice Canada correct me if I'm wrong, but this would likely be the first time in federal law that we've talked about an asserted treaty right to water specifically. It could be historic, in that way, to support first nations in bringing forth their views, not just on a written treaty but on oral promises associated with the treaty relationship.
In addition, we'll just point back to the rights section. Nothing in this bill can lessen existing treaty rights and aboriginal rights of rights holders. They are protected in clause 3 under “Rights”, which applies to the entirety of the bill.
The other component is that there are some first nations who may not consider themselves treaty rights holders right now, so this would provide a space for all first nations to engage in the conversation on asserted treaty rights to water.
Thank you.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I have a follow-up question. Why is the minister...? No. I shouldn't ask it that way, because that's a political question and we have a minister who only wants to do things by way of best efforts.
What prevents the minister from conducting the study now without this bill?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Nothing prevents a study from happening without a bill. Adding it to a bill would essentially require that study to happen, so it's the opposite of being voluntary.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Has there been an analysis of what the fallout could be and what would happen if this were incorporated in this bill, or if the minister chose to use their best efforts to do it right now without the bill?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
The analysis that has been completed is really on clause 3, the rights and ensuring that nothing that would be incorporated in the bill, or not incorporated, would derogate from existing treaty and aboriginal rights. That's been the structure of the analysis. It was to really protect existing treaty and aboriginal rights and to provide potential avenues where they could be strengthened in the future.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Absolutely understanding that those aboriginal treaty rights were protected and the non-derogation clause is in play, the purpose here is the belief that the area deserves much more thorough and thoughtful discussion, guided by first nations.
Again, this is compelling. It's within the bill to do that. Certainly the minister could do that, but it wouldn't necessarily be guided by the consultation and co-operation process, for example. There would also be, I believe, discussions around the potential funding that would support that study throughout these conversations.
Really, it's just about further discussing and further compelling this very important understanding that we all need to come to with regard to treaty rights and the assertion of water, specifically. It's just for more thoroughness and more thoughtfulness around this. It's certainly not meant to take away in any way, shape or form.