Evidence of meeting #76 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was regulations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Again, the way I see it, outlining the responsibilities of each party is essential. Otherwise, it will be similar to the situation in the First Nations Land Management Act. Certain signatories or actors could discover their role and obligations at the end of the process, which would be deplorable because the positions must be presented before the measures are implemented. In fact, everyone can adjust their efforts so there are no surprises in the end.
That is what I have to say on the matter.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you.
As currently written, paragraph 5(1)(n) enables the Governor in Council to make regulations that prescribe obligations for any person or body that exercises powers or performs duties. By virtue of defining obligations and duties, roles and responsibilities will be clearly established. This process is best left for regulatory development where all stakeholders will have input on a region-by-region basis to determine how the roles and responsibilities will be outlined.
It's the government's view, then, that this motion is unnecessary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I see no any additional speakers on amendment NDP-9.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 5 agreed to)
(Clause 6 agreed to)
(On clause 7—Conflict with First Nation laws)
The NDP has proposed amendment NDP-10.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to this amendment, we're moving that: A First Nation may request that a law or a by-law it makes respecting safe drinking water prevail over regulations made under this Act, if it submits a report from an independent third party indicating that the law or by-law provides equivalent or more stringent standards than those provided in regulations made under this Act.
Clause 7, as it stands now, essentially says that this act will override any laws or bylaws made by a first nation.
In terms of inherent rights and jurisdiction, we had testimony from witness after witness who raised concerns around infringement. Akwesasne in particular raised this. Certainly, the Blood Tribe and others raised this. So it would seem first nations that demonstrate that they have an independent verification, which their laws meet or exceed the standards of, should be able to proceed with their own laws.
We are hopeful, of course, that the government will support our amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Unfortunately, I won't let them get there. I do have a ruling with regard to this amendment.
Bill S-8 provides, in clause 7, that the regulations made under this provision prevail over any laws or bylaws made by a first nation. The proposed amendment provides that the laws or the bylaws made by the first nation prevail over the regulations made under the provisions of Bill S-8. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of this chair, the amendment tends to introduce a new concept that is contrary to the principles of Bill S-8, and therefore it is inadmissible.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The NDP has a proposal in amendment NDP-11 for a clause 7.1.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Part of the concern that's been raised throughout the testimony as well is the fact that regulations are made with virtually no parliamentary oversight. This particular amendment—I won't read all two pages of it—essentially what it would do is require that the House and the committee would have oversight on the regulations. There is a precedent for this, because it was done in the Quarantine Act. When you've been around long enough, you see these things come around. Back in 2004 or 2005 the health committee did have regulations come before it. So there is a precedent for it in other pieces of legislation.
Given the concerns that have been raised with regard to the development of these regulations and the impact, it would seem that a reasonable thing to do would be to ensure there is parliamentary oversight. So, I would encourage all members to support this amendment, particularly since it would allow us to see whether there had been unintended consequences from this particular piece of legislation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 8 to 13 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 14—Addition of Aboriginal bodies)
There is a consequential amendment that has been proposed for us to consider it. It is important, though, that we first vote on clause 14.
(Clause 14 negatived)
I note that as a result of the vote on clause 14, the consequential amendment G-1 is adopted.
Now there is a consideration for a clause 14.1, which is NDP-12.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is again with regard to parliamentary oversight. There are precedents in other pieces of legislation that “Within five years after this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions”, and so on. I won't read the whole piece of this.
There have been a number of other pieces of legislation where we had built in those reviews. The Specific Claims Tribunal Act comes to mind. Again, because there have been so many concerns raised about this piece of legislation, it would seem a responsible thing to do to have a reporting back after a five-year period to see whether there's been progress. We deliberately made it five years rather than three to allow time for the regulations to be developed and to hopefully see a fulsome consultation process put in place.
So that is our proposal with NDP-12.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 15 agreed to)
Shall the short title pass?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Shall the schedule carry?
The schedule fails.
(On clause 2—Definitions)
Clause 2 was delayed in consideration because there was some work to be done on that, but as a result of other votes Government-1 was adopted as a result of the defeat of clause 14, and NDP-13 was defeated as a result of the defeat of NDP-3.
So considering the now amended clause 2, shall clause 2 carry as amended?
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
In terms of considering the preamble, I believe there is an NDP proposal for that. That would be NDP-14.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, with regard to the suggested changes to the preamble, this is with respect to the issue around a water safety plan. We've outlined a number of elements that would be important to include as sort of setting a framework for where this legislation goes, such as, for example, looking at international best practices for supplying safe drinking water, relying on consistent and efficient operation of water treatment and distribution facilities, and looking at sources and the effective drinking water safety plan.
As well, we're emphasizing that the issue around consultation is really important, because the preamble talks about “working with First Nations”, yet we had the experience that the First Nations of Alberta Technical Services Advisory Group indicated. When they were asked to put together an impact analysis report, which was submitted to Indian and Northern Affairs in 2009, they had no feedback on that. They indicated that Bill S-8 was developed without any meaningful input “from first nations leaders, communities...or water system operators in Alberta”.
So there's little comfort that the regulations will actually be developed “in consultation”, given the track record with developing this bill, and I would encourage members to support our changes to the preamble.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Ms. Crowder.
I do have a ruling with regard to this amendment.
The proposed amendment NDP-14 aims to amend the preamble of Bill S-8. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 770:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.
In my opinion, no amendment has been adopted to warrant this amendment, and therefore it is inadmissible.
Considering the preamble unamended, shall the preamble carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Shall I, as the chair, report this bill as amended to the House?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, colleagues.
I thank you for your work on this. I want to remind colleagues that next week we consider the Yale treaty. We have set out a schedule for this. Thank you for that. I think we'll meet as a subcommittee in the next day or two or next week. We would like to consider what we're going to do beyond that.
Ms. Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Chair, I know that we had a discussion about supplementary (A)s. I understand that our last Friday is coming up, so our ability to hear the minister on supplementary (A)s is running out.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Let's discuss that at the subcommittee. I shouldn't speak on behalf of the committee, but I think it is important for the subcommittee to meet on that.
The meeting is adjourned.