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
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.
Why don't we suspend briefly? We can circulate those clauses that were stood, and we can reconvene in a few minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
You would have received in your email a list of the clauses that were stood, which we are now returning to.
Clause 14.1 is the one we're at right now. The amendment is NDP-24, which was moved. We had started debate on it, but then we stood it. We are going to return to that.
Ms. Idlout had the floor, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Battiste after that.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
I am glad that we're back to NDP-24. I'll reread the proposed amendment. It is that Bill C-61 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 10 the following new clause:
14.1 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
That will open it up to debate, starting with Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I think that there needs to be a good discussion on what we are doing with protection zones. There have been a number of amendments and subamendments. If we talk about this now, I think we're putting the cart before the horse.
I'd like to get consensus around the protection zones and then come back to this, because the wording of the NDP's motion speaks to the protection zone without our having a clear definition of what that is.
I think that we're close to a definition that most parties and stakeholders can live with. Can we put this on hold until we get to the protection zone? I feel that the discussion around the protection zone is going to be the one that is crucial to whether this clause can work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
It looks like there's unanimous consent around the table to do that. It just happens to be the next clause we'll be dealing with, so why don't we stand this until we get to complete clause 21 and CPC-5? Then we can return to this one afterwards.
(On clause 21)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
With that, we will resume debate on CPC-5, as amended by Mr. Shields.
I will open up the floor to Mr. Melillo.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I have Mr. Melillo's version, not Mr. Shields' version. It's the same reference number.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Just as a reminder, the subamendment that was made was to change “consent” in the fourth line of that amendment to “agreement”.
Mr. Melillo, you have the floor.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will briefly speak about this. There has been quite a lot of discussion about it, both at the table and on the side. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about it.
To reiterate, what this will do is create a subclause 21(3).
It reads:
A regulation made under subsection (1) must not come into force unless the Minister has obtained the free, prior and informed consent of First Nation governing bodies and the agreement of the governments of the provinces and territories.
This is aiming to ensure that the consent of first nations is being respected, as well as to understand the important role the province will play in this, especially if parts of protection zones will include any land that is currently provincially or territorially governed.
I just want to reiterate that this is where we are. That is the goal of this amendment. I believe this is strong language, notwithstanding any of the conversations we have all had around this.
I will leave it at that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
With that, I'll open this up to further debate, starting with Mr. Battiste.
November 26th, 2024 / 6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's been a lot of conversation back and forth among stakeholders and parties on this.
There are three challenges with protection zones, as I hear it.
The first is wanting to ensure we respect provincial jurisdiction and what the Supreme Court has said about co-operative federalism.
Second, there is a need to ensure we respect the articles of UNDRIP. I'm looking at the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It's not just talking about free, prior and informed consent. There is article 3 on self-determination, paragraph 8(2)(b) on dispossessing them of resources, article 25 on the spiritual relationship to water, and article 29 on environmental protection. In all of UNDRIP, there are a lot of different articles that talk about protecting water sources and connection to that water.
Third, we heard from first nations that there is a challenge putting provincial agreements in place. The provincial governments can drag their feet or stonewall first nations, so there's never an actual time frame for getting this started.
Based on those conversations, we had some discussions back and forth. We want to respect provincial jurisdiction and first nations' commitments to UNDRIP by putting in a time frame. That's in the following subamendment I put forward. It was circulated at 4:33 p.m.
It says:
In relation to a regulation made under subsection (1), the Minister must make best efforts to begin consultation and cooperation to enter into agreements with First Nation governing bodies, and the governments of provinces and territories in defining “protection zone” no later than the last day of the sixth month after the month in which this section comes into force in a manner that is guided by the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
That's the subamendment we have. I invite discussion. I also invite my colleagues to check with our stakeholders at AFN to find out whether they are okay with this as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.
The subamendment, as mentioned, has been moved. We'll open it up to debate, starting with Mr. Melillo.
I'll turn the floor over to you.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Battiste's trying to find a consensus. Truly, I do. As indicated, I feel that the original CPC-5 was stronger. However, I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Battiste to try to find agreement on this.
I hope everyone else at the table has time to review it thoroughly. In the interim, I would ask the officials what they view as the tangible differences between CPC-5, as written, and the subamendment.
What would it change?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Well, one difference is the inclusion of a time period. That is certainly omitted in one of the amendments. The recently introduced subamendment speaks about provisions included in other parts of the legislation, including reference to UNDRIP and respect for provincial jurisdiction.
I think there's some nuanced difference to language previously seen, as well as the inclusion of a time frame.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I appreciate that.
I think Ms. Idlout has her hand up, so I'll stop there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
As you mentioned, we'll go next to Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
I have just a quick question. Can I be reminded—I don't know by whom—whether we ended up having an amendment that incorporated FPIC into the bill? I seem to recall that we did.
Liberal