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.
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
While article 19 on free, prior and informed consent is an important one, I believe that article 3 on self-determination, article 25 on the spiritual relationship to water and article 29 on environmental protections are all important things that have to be considered in an agreement with the provinces. I wouldn't want to limit the discussion around UNDRIP to just one article, when there are at least four others that directly impact the discussions and agreements that will need to take place between the provinces and first nations governing bodies.
If the NDP sought advice from the stakeholders on this, I think they would see this is something that's fuller than inserting FPIC; it's about inserting the articles and principles that are currently within UNDRIP that talk about water, and there are a number.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you for that, Mr. Battiste.
Just from looking at the amendments that were passed, there are two amendments that were subamended to include free, prior and informed consent. The first one was CPC-7. The other one was G-2. CPC-7 was in relation to clause 22, so that was in relation to regulations and enforcement, and G-2 was in relation to clause 5, which has to do with principles and reliable access to water services.
I hope that answers your question, Ms. Idlout, but I'll turn the floor back to you.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Yes, it does. Thank you so much.
I appreciate the effort. I would suggest a minor amendment in the subamendment that was just submitted. In the second-to-last line, where it starts off with “manner that is guided by the principles of the United Nations Declaration”, I think we can strengthen that to say “into force in a manner that is consistent with the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Ms. Idlout, we need to first dispose of this subamendment before subamending it. We need to first vote on this one, and then we can determine whether we want to subamend it on top of that.
What would be helpful, Ms. Idlout, is if you could send that in writing beforehand. We can then make sure it's translated and ready for when we have that debate as well.
Before we do that, I'll pass the floor over to Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A couple more questions came to mind. I'm looking for further clarification from our officials. I know they were involved in some level in helping to word this. We appreciate that.
This specifically mentions the timeline, which is “the sixth month after the month in which this section comes into force”. I just want to get the read on that. Does the timeline in that refer to the agreements being reached or to the beginning of the consultation and co-operation?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
As it is currently worded, it would refer to the beginning of the consultation and co-operation.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay, and there wouldn't be any timeline set, I guess, on when those agreements would be reached. Is that correct?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
That is correct.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Okay. The only other point I would make is the.... Well, there are a couple. Obviously, this subamendment still includes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It removes the specific reference to “free, prior and informed consent” as well. Then, further to that, it brings back the phrasing of “best efforts”. It says, “the Minister must make best efforts”.
I know there's been some discussion about what that means. Could you just provide an understanding of “best efforts”? The phrase “the Minister must” sounds very definitive, but then, I think, “best efforts” become a little less definitive. Could you just clarify that again for us?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I'm happy to. Thanks for the question.
I think we've talked about that a couple of times, including today, when we talked about the cascade, with “must” as the most binding, “best efforts” meaning all avenues must be pursued in order to achieve an aim, and then less ambitious language around “should” and “could”. This sets a high bar and is consistent with previous conversations.
Liberal
November 26th, 2024 / 6:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I have a quick question for the officials as well. In the subamendment, it has “best efforts to begin consultation and cooperation to enter into agreements”, but there's really no requirement there to actually enter into an agreement, is there?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
The entire premise of protection zones requires willing partnership. Again, as this amendment speaks to and is spoken to several times in this legislation, it requires the willing partnership of the parties. It doesn't compel those parties to come together. It creates the space to align laws.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Does the original amendment, as proposed by Mr. Melillo, have the same level of requirement to reach agreement with the parties as the subamendment would, then?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
The original amendment says, “must not come into force unless all First Nation governing bodies and all the governments of the provinces and territories consent to it”, so it's still the same principle of parties needing to come together.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Except the word “consent” has been subamended to “agreement”—
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
It's “agreements”.
Conservative
Gary Vidal Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
—which, from my understanding—I wasn't here for that debate—is a bit softer.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
It's consistent with other.... The entire premise is to create agreements, an agreement for parties to come together, not to impose an agreement. If the analogy is whether either of these amendments compel action, I would say they do not. They both create a space for collaboration or for agreement-making.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you. Mr. Vidal.
I'm not seeing any other hands up. Let's move to a vote on the subamendment.
Oh, but before that, we go to Mr. Lemire.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chair, are we waiting for another subamendment from the NDP?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
That's not possible right now. We have to vote on Mr. Battiste's subamendment first. Then another subamendment may be moved.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Great.
I just want to mention that we will be supporting the subamendment, particularly because it refers to respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and I thank the government for its openness.