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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I just need to ask more questions.

Now that we've heard the bureaucrats use the terms that this would be “the first time” and that it would be “historic” if this amendment were to go through in this bill, why was that not considered when we wanted to include “free, prior and informed consent” in favour of consultation and co-operation?

Why did we not use this bill to ensure that first nations provide their free, prior and informed consent? That would be a first time. It would be historic to include that, especially when it comes to water.

Why is it that when it comes to conducting a study, this is considered a first-time, historic type of amendment to include in the bill?

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question.

I could be corrected by my colleagues at Justice Canada on this as well, so I'll leave that space open.

However, in terms of that language of “free, prior and informed consent”, this committee also had a lot of discussion around the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the elements covered within that act as well. That might be why it's a bit less historic, given the work already done on UNDA.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I'm going to think about a couple more questions. I need a couple of minutes to think about how to frame my next questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Okay.

In the meantime, Mr. Melillo, would you like to weigh in?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the meantime, while Ms. Idlout is thinking about those questions—and I appreciate her questions—I'll just pick up on the comments that others on this side of the table were making.

We also believe that the intention of this is great, but I don't see why this can't be done at our committee or done through the department already. It was indicated that nothing is prohibiting the minister from moving forward on this study presently. I would also argue nothing is prohibiting the minister from providing clean drinking water to all first nations without this legislation, but that's another point.

I just want to make sure that.... For the record, I agree with the comments from the other opposition members on the fact that we don't feel this is necessary or perhaps best placed in this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

I'm just waiting to see if there's anybody else who would like to weigh in at this point.

Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Going back to the responses that we had on a myriad of views on asserted treaty rights, my concern regarding the incorporation of this into the bill is that there are first nations whose rights have not been respected.

In practical terms, let's say that we pass this amendment. Let's say, for example, that Onion Lake Cree Nation, who wrote a letter asking all of us not to approve the whole bill for a few reasons.... What would the implication be for them, for example?

[Rebecca Blake]

I appreciate the question.

I am not sure which numbered treaty Onion Lake is part of, but I do believe that it is a numbered treaty, so it depends. In terms of Onion Lake, if it chose to be part of the study and to work together with other first nations in Canada on that study, it could bring forward its views on the written treaty that it's a part of, as well as any oral promises related to its treaty relationship with the Crown, what that could mean with regard to an asserted treaty right to water and what that could potentially mean to supporting implementation of that right.

Thank you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Can I have a minute, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Sure.

We'll take a minute here, but we'd like to bring this to a vote fairly soon. We'll give you a minute, Ms. Idlout.

Maybe let's take a couple of minutes to break here. We'll have a short health break, and then we'll return.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call the meeting back to order.

We left off debating new clause 27.1 and G-8. In the break, there was a bit of back-and-forth.

When we left off, Ms. Idlout had the floor, so I'm going to give the floor back to her.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, everyone at committee, for your patience.

Just knowing that we have international obligations and international studies.... We have the 1999 United Nations Human Rights Committee. We know the treaty right to water already existed. We also reaffirmed it in our previous debate on Bill C-61.

As such, trying to legislate conducting a study does not fall within the principles of the work we're trying to do for the treaty right to water. I think the intention behind the study is not a good one. If I can say this, my spidey senses are really sounding an alarm. I cannot support this amendment. As such, I will not be voting in favour of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Is there further debate on this?

Mrs. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

I appreciate Ms. Idlout's concerns. I disagree that there's anything sinister at all about this amendment, and I take a bit of offence to that. I actually think it is also about including provinces and territories in the study, which is a bit of a compromise on some of the discussion we've had at this table.

The minister could be doing this now, for sure, but this is also about compelling future ministers, which could happen as well. I worry about the future we're trying to legislate for. That's the spirit and the intent behind this.

I think it's very clear what it intends to do. It would be the first time that it is compelling a study to be done. The very critical importance of treaty rights and that assertion are great things to discuss further.

I'm really trying to defend the merits of it, but I'm happy to go to a vote at any time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

Not seeing any further hands up, how about we go to a vote on G-8?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(On clause 28)

The first amendment we have for clause 28 is NDP-65. I'll turn the floor back over to Ms. Idlout.

Before we get into it, I will have something to say about this amendment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

NDP-65 is an amendment that was submitted to us by the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations. Through their analysis and the work they did—and I thank them for it—they saw that clause 28, which talks about support, could be improved. This is because the way clause 28 currently reads is:

The Minister may provide support to First Nation governing bodies with respect to the entering into of the agreements referred to in sections 23 to 25.

The amendment would change “may” to “must”, so that the minister must provide support to first nations.

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout. Unfortunately, I do need to make a ruling on this amendment because 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 that imposes a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Accordingly, that takes us to....

Ms. Idlout, do you intend to challenge the ruling?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Yes, I intend to challenge the ruling, because clause 28, having reference to agreements established already in clause 23, does not create new obligations.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We'll go to a vote on whether the ruling of the chair will be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Colleagues, the decision is sustained, which takes us to the question on clause 28.

(Clause 28 agreed to on division)

(On clause 29)

The first amendment we have here is NDP-66, which was withdrawn.

We are at NDP-67. With that, I'll open the floor to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.

NDP-67, as you mentioned, looks to amend clause 29, with the heading “Environmental protection”. It would be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 16 with the following::

the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Con-

It would also replace line 20 on page 16 with the following:

tions made under those Acts protect the environment as much as or more than First Nations laws.

The differentiation is that first nations who have stewarded, maintained and lived on these lands since time immemorial have already been governing with the best intentions of protecting the environment even more than what we've seen in the last 150 years or so of past governments and their laws. Basically, it's showing that the amendment would be to help ensure the protection of the environment as much as or more than with first nations laws.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

NDP-67 has been moved. I'll open the floor to debate.

Mrs. Atwin, go ahead.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I'm all in favour of protecting the environment at every possible avenue, the analysis here is that it would actually require additional amendments to those acts in question to align with first nation laws. This is well-intentioned and great, and I think that work can be done, but in order to be in compliance with this piece, we would have to amend those other acts.

Also, given that water flows between jurisdictions, I think that the coordination of those laws through the protection zone agreements, similar to what we saw in the process for education and child and family services agreements, would be a better avenue to work with first nations as well as provinces and territories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.

Is there further debate?

Not seeing any further debate, let's move this to a vote. Shall NDP-67 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 29 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

That brings us to BQ‑27, which proposes the new clause 29.1.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.