Evidence of meeting #134 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
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The current language in the bill is about that comparability piece. Does this amendment actually make it stronger, or is the language in the bill currently stronger?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks for the question.
I would refer members to clause 31, which states, “The Government of Canada must make best efforts to provide funding that is adequate, predictable, stable, sustainable” and that meets the needs of the actual costs to first nations. If I were to compare and contrast the current clause 31 with the proposed amendment, I would lean toward having clause 31 make a stronger commitment.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
To follow up on that, when I read the amendment, the proposal, when I look at 31, I think there are some different words, but I think, at the end of the day, it's essentially saying the same thing to me from a tangible standpoint.
Mr. Barbosa, can you expand on why you would favour the language in clause 31 versus the proposed amendment?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Thanks. It's a great question.
I'll take it back to some of the iterative drafting that this committee has considered, including the consultation process.
What clause 31 talks about in strong terms is the comparability. The last part of this clause, which I actually didn't read, was:
so that First Nation persons are able to receive water services comparable to those received by persons in non-Indigenous communities.
That is language that was added as part of the consultation process on this bill, and it was iterative across the drafting. In my opinion, it's what makes clause 31 stand out.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
The point I'm getting at is that if BQ-28 were adopted and it mentions specifically funding that meaningfully reflects the consultations, I think it's maybe a distinction without a difference. Is it not essentially saying the same thing? I'm having trouble understanding the tangible change that would happen should this pass.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
When you stack the language side by side, I see a greater adherence to the concepts of the dialogue that this bill brought forward, including—and not to be verbose—that this clause 31 speaks to adequate, predictable, stable, sustainable, needs-based and comparative costs. Those are the bedrock of the funding dialogue or the funding framework that we just concluded and will return to.
It could be narcissistic in terms of the differences, but I would see this one being a bit more prescriptive and aligned to the language that we've been so diligently reviewing.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to grill you too hard. I'm just genuinely trying to figure out the differences.
I'm done there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you, Chair.
I am supportive of this amendment. I do have some questions.
If this BQ-28 were to pass, how would the government interpret “meaningfully reflects”?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I think it would be consistent with some of the other dialogue, in that the minister would be consulting, co-operating, and now we've introduced co-developing processes with first nations in respect to a myriad of things, but in this case we'd be talking about funding, so it would be done under that vein.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Towards the end it says “that meets the needs assessed”.
Does that mean that the funding would be meaningfully reflected only after there's an assessment? Does that require the assessment? What would happen if there is no assessment of the needs?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Your interpretation is correct. The paragraph being referenced is the consultation on funding allocations, which is the funding framework. That co-operation with first nations on assessing that need would need to occur.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I think this might be my last question. In the current clause 31, it's very interesting language in the first line, because, as much as I appreciate that in the second line you're saying that it strengthens 30 because of the funding that is “adequate, predictable, stable, sustainable and needs-based”, it's prefaced with “best efforts”. What I find interesting about this first line is some of the conversations we've had on the difference between “may”, “must” and “best efforts”.
Here, we have the bill saying, “The Government of Canada must make best efforts”. I wonder if you could explain for us what the difference is between “must make best efforts” and “may” or “must”.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
As point of clarification, it might be my misinterpretation, so I apologize to the member introducing the bill and to the chair.
This is in reference to section 30. The first line would hold, “The Government of Canada must make best efforts to provide funding”, etc. Both provisions contain “best efforts”, and this amendment would not remove the provisions of “best efforts” in section 30. That's something I would just underline.
In terms of the cascade, certainly, “efforts”, “best efforts” and “must”, to me, are a continuum of consecrating action, but I think both of these paragraphs in sections 30 and 31, including the amendment proposed, maintain the concept of best efforts.
I apologize to the member if I'm incorrect.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I do apologize. I just have one more quick question.
If there was a subamendment proposed to remove “make best efforts to”, so that it reads only “must”, what would the implication of that be?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
In this case, it is about funding the needs, so it would compel the minister to fund needs, which is a bit similar to PV-7 and NDP-68. I could stand corrected, but it's “must” do.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'm so sorry. I promise that this is probably my last question.
What is the overall intention of Bill C-61 again?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
There are three. One is the affirmation of first nations jurisdiction on law making regarding waters in, on or under their lands for water and waste water. The second is about closing a regulatory gap, the only regulatory gap in Canada, to support the provision of safe drinking water and waste water. The third is interjurisdictional, multi-party agreements to protect sources of water, i.e. protection zones.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Learning that there are differences between private members' bills and government bills, which are mainly that private members' bills can't attach funding—that's my understanding—and given that this is a government bill, hasn't part of the intention of this bill been to ensure that first nations have the resources they need to ensure clean drinking water?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, absolutely. I think I was referring to some of the questions I've received over the last couple of days on what the three paramount objectives of this legislation are.
Absolutely, the provisions that we're speaking to today are about—I won't go through them—creating a framework with first nations to understand what the actual costs are and the provisions of capital maintenance. We talked about monitoring, to publicize that report and to make best efforts to fund that report.
Those are new factors that don't exist today that this legislation would entrench as well.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
I'm not seeing any further hands up to intervene, so let's move to a vote.
Shall BQ-28 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clause 30 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 31)
That brings us to clause 31 and PV-8.
I'll turn the floor back to Mr. Morrice.
Green
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
This is another amendment proposed by the Six Nations of the Grand River. It follows the amendment proposed for section 30, as well as that from section 26, to remove “best efforts”.
Expecting the ruling that you are about to make on this, similar to what you did on section 30, I'll just say that Six Nations has shared that the best efforts of the Government of Canada have failed first nations for decades. This is why they are particularly strong in their calls to adapt the language to remove “best efforts” and replace it with “must provide funding that is adequate, predictable, stable”, and the rest of the text that is already in the bill.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much. Mr. Morrice.
First, I'll just note that because PV-8 was moved, NDP-72 and NDP-73 cannot be moved, because they are identical.
Unfortunately, I do need to make a ruling on this amendment, given that it attempts to create an obligation for financing that does not currently exist in the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states 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.
Accordingly, that will take us to NDP-70.
I'll open the floor back up to Ms. Idlout, noting that I will have something to say about this as well.