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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this amendment proposes a new clause 29.1.

I'd just like to respond to the previous vote, on the St. Lawrence Seaway. I sincerely wonder if the vote would have been different if it had been a waterway located in Ontario or in western Canada? It seems that there is often less openness when it concerns Quebec. I'm not surprised to see the lack of interest in these issues, particularly when it concerns first nations that are directly affected by them.

That said, I will now speak to BQ‑27.2.

The purpose of this amendment is for the minister to ensure that all organizations subject to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Canada Marine Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, strictly adhere to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in terms of consultation, collaboration and participation.

Further, I believe that upholding these principles includes incorporating indigenous perspectives into governance processes, as well as establishing collaborative mechanisms that allow for shared decision making with first nations to ensure the protection of ecosystems and the environmental rights of indigenous peoples.

According to the amendment, the minister must also ensure that these principles are not only respected but actively applied in all decisions related to the management and protection of navigable waters and waterways, including in infrastructure and development projects affecting these vital resources.

So the amendment is that Bill C-61 be amended by adding after line 24 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 are concerned — must ensure that every organization subject to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Canada Marine Act or the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 strictly adheres to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples respecting consultation, cooperation and participation. (2) Adhering to those principles must include taking Indigenous perspectives into account in governance processes and establishing cooperation mechanisms that allow for joint decision making with First Nations, in order to protect ecosystems and Indigenous peoples's environmental rights. (3) 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 also ensure that those principles are not only adhered to, but also actively applied in every decision about the management and protection of navigable waters and seaways, including in respect of infrastructure and development projects that affect those vital resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

So BQ‑27.2 has been moved.

I'll open the floor up for debate.

Ms. Idlout, I'll hand the floor first to you.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I just have a quick technical question because what I was reading in reference number 13430068 is being said slightly differently through the interpreter. There were variations and I wonder which version we are debating.

Is it the paper version or what was said by the interpreter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you for that question, Ms. Idlout.

It will be the paper version that was sent out. Sometimes the interpretation will not give us the exact legal interpretation. They do a fantastic job, but please stick with what we have on paper.

Next we have Mr. Melillo and then Mrs. Atwin.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to ask a couple of questions of our officials. I'll seek the clarification and hope we receive the clarification.

In reading this, it mentions that “every organization subject to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Canada Marine Act or the Canada Shipping Act, 2001strictly adheres to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.

I think that's a very great principle or thought, but I wonder about how that could possibly be enforced. I mean, there are a number of organizations that have to adhere to those acts. I imagine many of them are not in the control of the federal government.

Could you provide some thoughts on how that could actually be achieved, or if you would agree that it is difficult to achieve?

[Rebecca Blake]

I agree that the enforcement components could be difficult to achieve for a couple of reasons. One, those federal acts cited are the responsibilities of other ministers, not the lead minister for this bill, so it would really require their involvement in terms of any enforcement along those lines.

As well, to point to the references to international agreements, those would also be with different nation states. There might be specific enforcement mechanisms built into those agreements, and there would be a lot of dependencies on where this act could impose changes on another nation state, for instance.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, I think that's enough for me, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.

Next we'll go to Ms. Atwin.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I was going to ask a similar question to the officials about the implications of this in practice.

Maybe I can also ask about joint decision-making as well. Does that imply two parties? Is it kind of vague where it's open up to many parties? I'm just trying to see this in practice, how it would work.

[Rebecca Blake]

Joint decision-making could be two parties or multiple parties, depending on how it's operationalized. There is vagueness there.

I would also point to the existing principles of UNDA and UNDRIP that have been entrenched through this committee's work around those principles in this bill, as well as agreement-making. Co-management agreements, for example, could come about as part of the implementation of this bill as it is.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lemire.

After that, we'll go to Ms. Idlout.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In other words, we're asking the minister to ensure that his colleagues encourage the protection of water. It's a matter of shaking the habit we all too often have of working in silos when it comes to this kind of measure. All ministers must feel concerned about protecting waterways and, above all, about the effects that may have on first nations.

In short, we want to make sure that the work is more collaborative. That's what this measure is about.

[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, Chair.

I do support this amendment.

In thinking about your response to the Conservatives' questions about other nation states regarding, for example, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, can you remind us if the United States signed on to UNDRIP?

[Rebecca Blake]

Would my colleague Mr. Fairbairn know if the United States has signed on to UNDRIP?

[Douglas Fairbairn, Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services, Department of Justice]

I cannot say for certain. I believe not, but I don't know for certain.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Then can you give us a scenario as to how this provision would work? I wish someone could answer for sure, so could someone look it up quickly and let us know if the U.S. is in agreement with UNDRIP? That's the only other nation that I can think of that would be implicated by this. That's why I'm asking about the United States. Can you describe for us how that would play out, just to get more details in response to what the Conservatives were asking?

[Rebecca Blake]

As a general principle of law-making, the Parliament of Canada can only make laws that apply in Canada. In terms of this proposed amendment that relates to international agreements, any potential applications of those international agreements would only be as they apply in Canada, so it would be agreement by agreement to look at what the implications would be.

We did get the answer for you, thanks to my colleagues. The United States does support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but I do not believe that it's part of their law.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

I'm not seeing any other hands up. I believe we can go to a vote on BQ-27.2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 30)

I want to welcome back Mr. Morrice, because the next amendment we have up is PV-7.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment, like others before it, comes to us from the testimony we heard from the Six Nations of the Grand River. In this case, it mirrors the language they were pushing to have included in clause 26, which we spoke about last night, when it comes to removing “best efforts” and increasing the responsibility of the minister to ensure that access to clean drinking water is provided.

This is the section on funding. The current text in the bill states, “The Government of Canada must make best efforts to provide funding”. The amendment would remove “make best efforts to”. This would clarify the bill and increase the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

With this amendment, the new text would read as follows:

The Government of Canada must provide funding that meets the needs assessed in the framework referred to in subsection 27(1).

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

I'll say a few things.

First, because PV-7 has been moved, NDP-68 and NDP-69 cannot be moved, because they are identical.

Unfortunately, I do need to make a ruling on this amendment. The amendment attempts to create an obligation for financing that does not currently exist in the bill.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following 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.

We are now on BQ‑28.

I'm going to go to Mr. Lemire.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑28 proposes that Bill C‑61, in clause 30, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 16 with the following:

provide funding that meaningfully reflects consultations and cooperation between the Minister and First Nation governing bodies under subsection 27(1) and that meets the needs assessed in the

In this context, we propose that the minister take into account what he finds in his assessment framework and that he meaningfully reflect the consultations and cooperation referred to in clause 27. We want the government to be exemplary in its role as a water supplier. That is the purpose of amendment BQ‑28.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.

BQ-28 has been moved. I'll open it up for debate.

Mrs. Atwin, you have your hand up.