Evidence of meeting #132 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
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
We could see that delay stretching over years, potentially. Is that correct?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Potentially, yes, we could.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I was reminded of a story about the Quebec hydro dam and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I think that was the first modern land claims agreement Canada had with a first nation or an indigenous rights-holding group. That first one was truly co-developed, I understand. There were true negotiations whereby the indigenous, Cree and Inuit peoples in that area were able to negotiate an agreement that continues to have impacts on their communities.
Since that agreement, with a lot of the subsequent land claims agreements that happened afterward with other indigenous groups, the federal government learned with each negotiation to water them down. For example, to get the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, we had to extinguish some of our rights.
I'm wondering about learning from those kinds of lessons. If this amendment were to go through—without talking about delay, but talking about the dialogue and the content of that dialogue—what kind of impact would it have on first nations governing bodies that have not been able to rightfully exercise their rights as first nations governing bodies because they aren't being given the equal platform to be first nations governing bodies?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the storytelling as well.
I'm not as familiar as you are with the agreement and the subsequent negotiations of modern treaties and how they evolved after the James Bay agreement.
To repeat what I've said, in terms of requiring broad consent of all parties on a definition of protection zones prior to entering into agreements or coordinated approaches to coordinate laws with first nations and implicated provinces and territories, there is the potential that coming together to support first nations in exercising their rights could take significantly more time.
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I know protection zones are going to be contentious, and I don't see us getting to a consensus on them in this committee.
I'm wondering if we can agree to the subamendment for “agreement“, as opposed to “consent” in the provincial part. Have some conversations and park all of the amendments on protection zones to give us some time to reach out to parties and find out what they're comfortable with and how we can ensure that the onus isn't....
Well, the veto rights over protection zones do not rest with the provinces, but it gives them an ample opportunity to collaborate with first nations on their views and to be able to move past protection zones and come back to them at a later point.
At this time, I don't think we have agreement on protection zones. That may jeopardize our passing this when it comes to an actual vote, whether by unanimous consent or.... I've had some conversations with Mr. Melillo, and we're not close to the same spot where we need to be on this.
I'm wondering if the Bloc and the NDP would be agreeable to parking the discussion on protection zones. It would give us, the government, an opportunity to reach consensus on how we can best balance first nations communities' need to protect their protection zones with provincial governments wanting to ensure that their jurisdiction is respected.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Battiste.
I'm just going to comment on this before opening it up to others to make comments.
We could vote on the subamendment now and then stand this clause, such that we would come back to it at the very end. We did the same thing for the definitions. We would go through the rest of the clauses, then the definitions and then end with this, which would give time for that type of conversation to happen.
With that, I'll open it up for others to make an intervention on that, starting with Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the way in which Mr. Battiste is trying to collaborate and get to a point where everyone can be happy with this bill. Obviously, this is a very important aspect of the legislation, so I have no issue with taking a bit more time to discuss it.
I would suggest as well, though, that we do dispose of the subamendment at the very least, if there is agreement to include “agreement” rather than “consent” for provinces. I think that's a relatively simple change that we can dispose of.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
Are there any other thoughts?
Are we ready to vote on the subamendment, then? It looks like there is unanimous consent for CPC-5 to be subamended.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next, do we have unanimous consent to stand clause 21, so that we return to it at the end?
(Clause 21 allowed to stand)
(On clause 22)
The first amendment in clause 22 is BQ-15.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned in the previous clause, this amendment seeks to remove the concept of an area adjacent to first nations lands and simply refer to it as a protected area. It therefore strengthens the coherence of our discussions and clarifies what is to be seen in the potential debates that this will generate in the negotiations surrounding the codevelopment of projects or other projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
I'll just note that BQ-15 and G-6 are identical.
Is there any debate?
Go ahead, Mr. Melillo.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I just have point of clarification. I apologize if I missed it.
Would this amendment also remove the adjacency as was done previously? Let's see if I'm reading it correctly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo. I think that question can be best answered by our officials here.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, you are correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Just so members are aware, if this is adopted, G-6 can't be moved because of a line conflict.
Not seeing any other debate, let's move this to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I understand that there are some time constraints around the 1:30 p.m. deadline for some of us. We've had a full and productive day.
We have 10 minutes before that deadline. Do we want to get into introducing something that will probably need further debate and will last more than 10 minutes, or can we call it a day and say, “Well done”?