Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 14th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Step by step, maybe we're coming to some sort of agreement.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, for the amendments. Numbers (1) to (4) seem to be recommendations. Getting to recommendations ahead of the actual report...I certainly support taking those out.

As I mentioned, I'm very happy at the request to do the report. I'll put this out perhaps to my colleague who has joined us from the environment committee. It's whether “Canada's waterbodies” is an accurate enough description. In the general context, I understand it's about drinking water for first nations. Maybe my colleague from the NDP can chime in as well on this—whether “waterbodies” covers, specifically, drinking water.

I'm not sure if that needs to be a further amendment. I will rely on Mr. Leslie or Mr. Desjarlais to chime in afterwards.

The only other issue I have, and I mostly support the amendment, is that I guess we are keeping the fourth paragraph “in relation to the Follow-up Study on 'Report 3: Access to Safe Drinking Water'”, which is fine.

It then says, “following the evidence provided by witnesses at the Standing Committee on Environment”. I am hesitant to have this committee put forward suggestions based on the work of another committee that I haven't seen, and I am concerned about making recommendations. Certainly keep the first line in, and I'm just putting this out there for further discussion. Again, it's asking for us to put forward a statement based on witnesses at another committee that we haven't heard.

I bring this up because I brought this up with AG Hogan, and also AG Ferguson, before his passing, about the shipbuilding study. We were doing a study in OGGO, the only committee that matters, about shipbuilding and asked if they actually referred to the evidence, witnesses and testimony in that study. The AG commented that, no, they do not actually look at information that comes up in other studies. Therefore, the current AG and the previous AG both stated that they don't consider testimony, recommendations or anything else from other studies.

Again, I'm hesitant about putting forward something based on what was heard in another committee when I haven't heard it myself.

Mr. Desjarlais, I'll put this out to you as you were conferring with someone. On the last line about “Canada's waterbodies, especially those on Indigenous lands”, are you're satisfied that would actually cover drinking water as well?

There is water body access, but again, from the MLI report, there's also underground water access. I'm not sure if you're satisfied. I understand the intent, but I want to make sure we are clear that it's water bodies but also specifically drinking water. Could you just chime in on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, before I turn to Mr. Desjarlais, I heard musings about a possible subamendment but nothing formal, so we are proceeding with the amendment to the motion.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

If we're fine with it, then I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I do appreciate my colleague from the Bloc's amendment and, of course, with support from the Conservatives, we see a shielding of the Alberta Energy Regulator. I understand there are political reasons, partisan reasons, to protect the United Conservative Party's Alberta Energy Regulator, so—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I have a point of order from Ms. Goodridge.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

But I was about to agree with Mr. McCauley—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on. I have a point of order. I have to hear it.

Go ahead, Mrs. Goodridge.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I really think that is imputing false motives on members of the Conservative Party. It has nothing to do with shielding or the provincial government. It's frankly about whether it's provincial or federal jurisdiction, and I believe that the amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Goodridge, I'm going to stop you. That is the point I made in my objection so, while I agree with you, we are well beyond that in terms of debating.

Mr. Desjarlais knows how far he should push language while still hopefully getting consensus here. That is a very friendly reminder.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes, and I do appreciate that the member comes from an area where this bill is taking place, and they may have a motive in not talking about those impacts, but I digress, Mr. Chair.

It's important to first nations in Alberta and it's important to members of Parliament to understand that the Alberta Energy Regulator does not operate outside our Constitution. I must be clear that I do, in fact, want to see consensus on this. I'd like members of this committee to come together on this, so, to the Bloc Québécois' amendments and striking 1, 2, 3 and 4, I'm okay to do that.

However, on the principle of what needs to be addressed, I would offer a subamendment to the amendment, which I think will take into direct account the issues of first nations, in particular ACFN, in their discussions with members of Parliament and their discussions with the government as to their concern in relation to the AER's impact and the federal government's obligation to those communities. The language I think I proposed prior to the final recommendation, which would become the new 1, would be to:

Call on the Auditor General to assess the Treaty, Inherent, and S.35 Rights impact of FN and Métis Communities by the Alberta Energy Regulator as it relates to Canada’s obligations to Treaty and Inherent rights of First Nations and Métis Communities in Alberta.

This falls wholly within our jurisdictional responsibility, and it's important, Chair, that in instances—and there have been instances—where provinces have trampled on the rights of indigenous people, it's up to us to ensure that we have full accountability in the protection of those rights. This is an important amendment. It deals with what the government is proposing, which are really serious concerns with the Alberta Energy Regulator. It deals with the concerns the Conservatives have with it being out of jurisdiction. It deals with the concern of the Bloc about provincial jurisdiction and puts it wholly within our narrow obligation founded in section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, which is the sole responsibility of jurisdiction for “Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians”. When there is an impact to that jurisdiction, it's the federal government's obligation and duty to protect those rights that are founded within our legal framework here in Canada.

I think it's important, so I'll—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Again, Mr. Desjarlais, I'm not trying to pick a constitutional fight with you. I'm ruling that subamendment out of order for the same reason as before. I can tell you, in my experience, the Auditor General's office will get back and say that they have no authority to investigate a subnational government. It would be like asking the auditor to investigate the Ontario liquor board, or the municipality of—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

On a point of order, first nations are not the Ontario liquor board, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You said that you wanted to investigate a provincial body.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'm talking about indigenous rights. I'm talking about the rights impacts of first nations and Métis communities, and the subamendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Is your subamendment not—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

—makes clear that there is a potential rights infringement and that it's our obligation to investigate those rights infringements.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm not disputing that, but your subamendment calls on the OAG to investigate a provincial—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

No, it says to assess the rights.... I'll say it one more time:

Call on the Auditor General to assess the Treaty, Inherent, and S.35 Rights impact of FN and Métis Communities by the Alberta Energy Regulator....

or any other entity that may do that. It's our constitutional obligation. We do this all the time. I'm confused why all of a sudden the Alberta Energy Regulator gets this kind of defence against a constitutional right of indigenous people.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Oh, no. I'd have the same objections if this was calling on an investigation of a provincial matter dealing with Acadians or in any other province.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Again, Mr. Chair, these are unfounded...You're relating the liquor board, or Acadians, to first nations rights, which is the problem. I'm trying to tell you we have a constitutional obligation under section 35—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, no. You're conflating my words. I am saying the auditor is focused on federal levels.

I have Mrs. Goodridge on a point of order.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I appreciate that Mr. Desjarlais has read his subamendment a couple of times. I understand what he's trying to get at, but I'm asking to get this in writing, because it's a bit more complex than just removing some lines, or adding a sentence. I believe that would help me in making a decision, if I could see it in front of me.