Evidence of meeting #130 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 standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Yes, absolutely. The question is, shall clause 11 carry?
(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1[See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 12 agreed to on division)
(Clause 13 agreed to on division)
(On clause 14)
The amendment we have for clause 14 is NDP-23. I will open up the floor to a mover for NDP-23.
Go ahead, Ms. Idlout.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you.
I move amendment NDP-23. It was given to us by the Assembly of First Nations. It's to add that the minister will have to work on freshwater sources on first nations lands. The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations also requests changes to strengthen clause 14 by adding paragraphs 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) and subclause 14(2).
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Is there debate on NDP-23?
I have Mrs. Atwin and then Mr. Melillo.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I know that the proposed measure that's already in the bill was developed with first nations to ensure that decision-making over those minimum standards lies with those individual first nation communities.
I'm just concerned, so I'm going to ask our experts.
Could this require the federal government to then impose standards on a community by default instead of starting from that co-development space?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the question.
Clause 14, as written, begins with “Subject to the choice” of a first nation. That's the choice over Canada's drinking water guidelines or provisions found in the applicable province or territory. First nations would inherently have the ability to apply standards based on their choice.
The amendment begins with “The Minister must ensure”, which removes the concept of choice. I would also point to clause 18, which speaks to provisions if no choice is made.
It seems that as written, clause 14 and subsequent clauses that are speaking of waste water allow first nations to apply choice on standards, and then, should a choice not be made by first nations, there are subsequent provisions that invoke co-development with the minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Atwin.
Next I have Mr. Melillo and then Mr. Battiste.
November 7th, 2024 / 8:40 a.m.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I had the same question, so I appreciate the answer you already gave, Mr. Barbosa.
Looking at this, I think I understand the intent. Obviously, we want to have strict water standards and high-quality water standards, but I do worry about the power, for lack of a better word, that the minister would have, potentially, over a first nation in determining those standards if this were to pass.
I think you just answered this question, but just to clarify it for myself, looking ahead to clause 15, would the principle in NDP-23 already be covered through the process set out in clause 15?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the clarification.
I think the concept to me is choice or autonomy of a first nation in the choice of standards—in this case for clean drinking water and later in waste water—between national standards or provincial and territorial standards, which are sometimes more strident.
If there is no choice made, I would point to clause 18, which talks about the causal impact of the lack of application of standards and then what would be the effects and relationship with the minister. I believe those things are covered in clause 18.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
I have Mr. Battiste next, and then Mr. Shields.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Actually, Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Melillo covered what I was thinking. If we give the minister these powers instead of giving the communities the choice to choose, I think that's....
I agree with those comments and the comments of the witness. I'll retract my question.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like some clarification. When we're talking about “choice of standards”, can you clarify what choice of standards would be available under the legislation?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Grosso modo, there are two buckets of clean drinking water standards. There are national standards, and then provinces and territories have their own standards that apply above and beyond national standards. I think in the province we're in today, post Walkerton, there's a considerable increase in standards for clean and safe drinking water, potable water and access to water.
There are, in this country, geographically specific standards that are provincially and territorially created. Then there's a national minimum standard that creates a minimum standard for all Canada's drinking water.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I have a question on that. I'm very familiar with Walkerton. I'm very familiar with what provincial governments talked about in establishing standards in their provinces across Canada following that. There was a lot of similarity in those standards provincially across the country as they were developed. Everybody was talking about it. Every province got into it. I remember being there at that point.
In the choice between national standards and provincial standards, are you saying that national standards are higher than provincial standards?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I don't believe I said that. I said that Canada's drinking water guidelines provide minimum standards. Provinces and territories have standards above and beyond those. In the concept of choice, there are two windows.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Shields.
I see that Ms. Idlout has her hand up.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you for clearly defining it.
You just spoke about how it would create co-development. If NDP-23 were to not proceed, are there other co-development plans around this?
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
As my colleague mentioned, the way the provisions are currently drafted is really around first nation choice between those national guidelines and provincial guidelines. Through the engagement process, we have heard a multitude of views, especially around how strong Ontario provincial standards are and a desire to apply them. That won't necessarily apply to every first nation across present-day Canada, so it's to provide that choice.
Then, as my colleague mentioned, clause 18 does provide pathways if a choice is not made of how to apply the strongest standard to ensure safe drinking water in those first nation communities.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I know these are minutiae, but you used two words: “guidelines” and “standards”. Anybody who's in this business knows they are not guidelines. They are standards, and you comply.
I just wanted to make that clear.