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

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To try to simplify things with respect to clause 29.1 that we're proposing to add, we've divided our proposal into three, in order to make it easier for everyone to understand.

The goal is to protect elements that affect the health of first nations, but especially the way information circulates.

BQ‑27 seeks to add the following new clause:

29.1 The Minister must, without delay, inform affected First Nations governing bodies of any significant risk of harm to health or the environment.

I would note that this responsibility would also fall to any other minister, federal agency or other responsible authority.

We want to make sure that first nations are informed in the event of a spill or contaminated effluent. Unfortunately, we hear all too often that this isn't the case. I can give Kahnawake as an example, but there are many others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

BQ-27 is moved. I'll open up the floor to debate on BQ-27.

Are there any colleagues who would like to make an intervention? Not seeing any hands up, let's move to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

That takes us to clause 30.... Could we quickly pause?

I'm sorry. I was a bit confused.

We still have the new BQ-27.1. This was circulated last Thursday. Just for awareness, the reference number is 13430067.

I'll give the floor back to Monsieur Lemire to move this one.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is one of the important points, particularly for Quebec and its first nations, because it concerns the whole issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

In this context, the St. Lawrence Seaway is obviously essential to navigation, but there may be elements that affect first nations, in a beneficial way in some cases, but especially in a more negative way in others.

We want first nations to be involved in the governance, management and decision making when it comes to the protection, maintenance and use of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This right to participation helps protect the water source of many nations along the St. Lawrence, such as the Innu, the Abenaki and the Mohawks, to name just a few.

This bill aims to protect water sources, and we really want to make sure that this is also the case for the St. Lawrence River.

For the benefit of the outsiders who are listening to us, I will read subclause 29.1(1), which we are proposing to add:

29.1 (1) The Minister — as well as any other members of the King's Privy Council for Canada, other persons and bodies established under an international agreement that are concerned — must ensure that First Nations directly connected to the St. Lawrence Seaway and its tributaries enjoy a full and meaningful right to participate in governance, management and decision making concerning the protection, maintenance and use of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

After that, there would be subclause 29.1(2), which would read as follows:

(2) The right to participate includes the prior and informed consultation of First Nations and their free, prior and informed consent in respect of any initiative that directly affects their territories, resources or Aboriginal rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

I'll open it up to debate.

First is Mr. Battiste and then I'll see Ms. Idlout.

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

Can you read how the line would stand now in its totality? We understand the intention of it, but I don't understand the wording of it.

Can you give us the actual wording as it reads? Can you read it for us?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The idea is to add clause 29.1, which would fall after clause 29.

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

Can you read it?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Can I read it? Okay.

I just did, but I can read it again.

The amendment is that Bill C-61 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 16 the following new clause:

29.1 (1) The Minister — as well as any other members of the King's Privy Council for Canada, other persons and bodies established under an international agreement that re concerned — must ensure that First Nations directly connected to the St. Lawrence Seaway and its tributaries enjoy a full and meaningful right to participate in governance, management and decision making concerning the protection, maintenance and use of the St. Lawrence Seaway. (2) The right to participate includes the prior and informed consultation of First Nations and their free, prior and informed consent in respect of any initiative that directly affects their territories, resources and Aboriginal rights.

I can give you a concrete example, if you like, with the situation that the Mohawks of Kanesatake came to tell us about and that concerned the City of Châteauguay. If a city ever does an intervention that has an impact on a first nation's water source, the first nation isn't necessarily informed. The fact remains that the quality of its water sources will be affected. As a result, it may have to retreat all the water in its drinking water system, because it wasn't informed beforehand of the presence of a contaminant in the water or of an intervention that was made on its water sources.

If there were a spill in the St. Lawrence, the situation would be somewhat the same. It's simply to enable first nations, who are often at the end of the information chain and don't have the same communication networks as others, to be informed. They must also be allowed to participate in decision making. Their inclusion in the circle of information and decision making will facilitate measures that will help first nations to properly treat their water sources, in keeping with the increased responsibility this bill confers on them in this regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Battiste, you still have the floor. I'll then go to Ms. Idlout and Mr. Melillo.

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

I'm going to go to the officials on this, but it seems like this clause is going to be exactly what we've been discussing about protection zones. Looking at this particular one with the St. Lawrence River, I understand the principle and agree with it, but it seems like we're taking a shortcut for the St. Lawrence River when it's a protected zone.

I think we've come close to getting some consensus around wording that not only respects the first nations but also respects provincial jurisdiction. If we add this clause here, it will take away from what we've been discussing about the protection zones. That's my understanding of it.

I'd ask the officials if this seems like a very specific reference to something that we're discussing in broader terms when we're talking about the protection zones.

[Nelson Barbosa]

Thanks for the question.

The protection zone, not to belabour it, is a willingness of all parties—first nations, provinces and territories—to align laws to protect water and sources of water.

Without having the luxury of the text, but having listened diligently, I think this would essentially be creating a protection zone. It would be creating a table implicating first nations and water management parties, including that of the Province of Quebec, to—it sounds like more than “inform”—collaborate and to be joint stewards of that water.

It's an excellent example of what a protection zone could become. This would be entrenching that protection zone in Bill C-61.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Battiste.

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

Because I think there have been some discussions around protection zones and some consensus around language, I think I wouldn't want to have just one for the St. Lawrence River without reflecting also where I come from in the Bras d'Or Lakes, or anyone else's lakes that are in their ridings, and have them asking why we did a shortcut for one but not for all.

I do believe we have some terminology coming on the protection zones that'll help us actually do, in the “protection zone” language, what Mr. Lemire is suggesting for this, but for a broader context. In this case, we'll probably be voting no as a government, but we'll be revisiting this at a later time in an amendment I know the Bloc has seen from me, when we're discussing the broader implications of protection zones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.

Next we'll go to Ms. Idlout, then Mr. Melillo and then Monsieur Lemire.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik.

I'm just wondering, when it comes to interpreting legislation that names specific areas such as this, how the legislation is interpreted if they don't include other areas that might want to be considered in the same way.

[Nelson Barbosa]

The proposed amendment speaks to specific parties, first nations that abut or are adjoined to, connected to—to go back to some previous language—the St. Lawrence Seaway and clearly implicates the Province of Quebec and likely the municipalities. Those would be named parties without actively seeking their consent as being part of of that process. It has no ancillary objective other than that it's really what a protection zone is trying to be, I suppose. It's bringing parties together. This is speaking of a very specific location and saying that these are the parties that would be implicated, if I understood the question correctly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

For example, if a first nation in the NWT felt like they wanted to use a similar provision to this, but they aren't named as a party or as a geographical area, what would the implication be for them regarding the Mackenzie River, for example?

[Nelson Barbosa]

Then I would refer, for parties not implicated in this proposed amendment, them to part of the “protection zone” conversations that we had, which are contingent on willing parties—first nation and provinces, territories and municipalities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Next we'll go to Mr. Melillo.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

A lot of what I wanted to say was already covered, so I won't reiterate it all. I don't see how I could support this. I think it does effectively create a protection zone. I know we're doing a lot of work around CPC-5 and different variations, which may or may not take, in order to ensure that first nation consent and provincial agreement is reached in defining a protection zone.

I think this really oversteps all of that and essentially creates a one-off protection zone with the St. Lawrence before there is any direct consent of the first nations or of the provinces, or of Quebec, for that matter. For those reasons, I'll be certainly opposing this, and I would encourage my colleague from the Bloc to support CPC-5 so that we can ensure we can define “protection zones” with the first nations and provinces on board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lemire.

Then after that we'll have Ms. Idlout.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to correct one thing. The intent isn't to create a protected area for the St. Lawrence, but to ensure that the first nations concerned are directly informed of the potential consequences.

It's important to remember that the St. Lawrence Seaway is a waterway that was created. The river is wide enough in some places, but the waterway had to be dug up and widened in other places, which had consequences. Let's look at the history. The decision was made not to build the waterway near the Lachine Canal at Kahnawake or Châteauguay, but rather to move it a little further south. This has led to flooding of first nations lands, isolating some first nations and redefining their territories. These people have suffered the consequences of colonial decisions, without ever having been involved in the process or consulted.

By adding these provisions, we want to ensure that affected nations, such as the Mohawks of Kahnawake, in particular, can be involved and consulted at every stage of decisions related to the waterway.

When we talk about full participation in the governance, management and decision making regarding the protection, maintenance and use of the St. Lawrence Seaway, it's not just at the recreational level. We're talking about a waterway that is one of the main waterways. We agree that this has an impact on the ports of Montreal and that everything that goes to Toronto will go through there. That has a huge impact on first nations. If something happens to the environment, first nations need to know about it directly. Right now, the information chain doesn't reach first nations, either for pre-consultation or for the maintenance, use and protection of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

Next we'll go to Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I do support this amendment, especially after what I heard from the bureaucrats. I don't know if the Conservatives heard the same response that I did, but the way that I interpreted their response to my question was that it would not have a negative impact on other geographical areas, that it would actually help other first nations in their negotiations. I'm just a little bit surprised with the response from the Conservatives because, based on what I heard with my line of questioning on this amendment, it would not have a negative impact on other first nations and what they want to do to participate in governance, management and decision-making concerning water.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I'm not seeing any further hands up for debate, so let's move this to a vote. This is on BQ-27.1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

BQ-27.1 is defeated.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Lemire to move BQ‑27.2, if he wishes.