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.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Could the experts give us an analysis of whether either amendment is reflected anywhere else in Bill C-61?
Rebecca Blake Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
I appreciate the question.
Co-development has come up in previous discussions at this committee. However, it is not otherwise in the existing draft, aside from the work of the committee. In terms of standards, there are sections on those to ensure they apply.
That would be the key difference. One amendment is introducing the terms of co-development, whereas the other looks to ensure standards are reflected in the funding framework to be developed in consultation and co-operation with first nations.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Because I feel both are important, I don't think they should be competing provisions.
Could I submit a subamendment to add NDP-56 wording to CPC-9?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Ms. Idlout.
As always, we need to have any subamendments submitted in writing.
Perhaps we can pause briefly to sort out what that might look like. We can return once we have that submitted to the members in writing.
We'll pause for a minute.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I call this meeting back to order.
Ms. Idlout had put forward a subamendment, which has now been submitted in writing, translated and circulated to all members of the committee.
I'll turn the floor back over to Ms. Idlout to speak to this subamendment.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
I appreciate everyone's patience on this. I know that if I had been told earlier that there were line conflicts, I would have done my analysis sooner, so that I could work on a subamendment earlier, so that we wouldn't have to suspend. If there are line conflicts with any of my amendments, it would be helpful to tell me right away, so I can submit potential subamendments to avoid these suspensions.
The reason I feel that CPC-9 and NDP-56 are both important is that they have different intentions. I'm very thankful to the committee for its patience in allowing me to submit a subamendment.
The main wording of NDP-56 was submitted by the First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water. I thank them for the work they did to see that Bill C-61 could be improved by adding this subamendment to CPC-9.
It is to add, after “bodies”, the following words:
and meet the obligations set out in sections 31, 33 and 34.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
I want to pass the floor over to Ms. May, because if this is adopted, it'll mean that PV-6 cannot be moved.
I'll turn the floor over to Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this context, PV is Parti vert. They decided long ago—trivia for committee members—not to use G for “green” because it kind of looks like “government”.
I appreciate taking the floor long enough to say that we also are very grateful for the work of the First Nations Advisory Committee on Safe Drinking Water. The amendment submitted by the Green Party is indeed identical to the NDP subamendment that you're about to vote on. If I had a vote, of course, I'd be voting for it.
Thank you for your time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. May.
Is there other debate on the subamendment to CPC-9?
(Subamendment agreed to on division)
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP-56 cannot be moved, nor can PV-6. That will take us to CPC-10.
I'll pass the floor over to Mr. Melillo to speak to CPC-10.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm happy to move CPC-10.
CPC-10 is not introducing a new idea from the perspective of our amendments, including that this hopes to include co-development directly into the framework, which is currently lacking.
Subclause 27(2) now reads, “The Minister's consultations and cooperation in respect of the framework for assessing needs may involve, among other things, the following matters”, and then the list goes on.
After “assessing needs”, we would add “and the co-development of the framework”, just to strengthen that co-development aspect, ensuring that first nations have that direct involvement. This is very similar to the one we just approved.
I'm hopeful that we can move quickly to get this passed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Melillo.
CPC-10 has been moved. I'll open the floor up if there is any debate on CPC-10.
Ms. Idlout.
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I do support this amendment. I just have a quick question in preparation for later amendments.
In my notes, with my work with others in preparation for going through clause-by-clause, I've noted that I have a question about paragraph 27(2)(c), which is “monitoring”.
If you'll just bear with me, I might want to submit a subamendment based on the response, but I want to buy time before we get to it, so that we can make sure to avoid a long suspension based on the response.
For example, with regard to “monitoring”, I have a question for the experts. When we include “monitoring”, I'm wondering about the laboratories. I know that there are licensed laboratories that perform tests. When we're including “monitoring”, is there a consideration of the lack of resources that exists in northern communities?
Here's an example. When the James Bay Cree in northern Quebec need to perform drinking water tests, they don't have a licensed laboratory close enough to them, so their drinking water tests are performed in Thunder Bay. I don't know how long it would take to get those specimens to Thunder Bay.
Another example that I can speak directly to is this: Right after I was elected in Nunavut in 2021, Iqaluit experienced major issues with water. We had a boil water advisory for months. We had bottled water flown in by jets for months. Because Nunavut doesn't have its own licensed laboratories, I believe, to perform that drinking water test to monitor it, I believe the water had to be sent to Winnipeg—I'm not too sure.
I'm just wondering, when we're talking about “monitoring” in paragraph 27(2)(c), if that helps to ensure that those scenarios are covered, or if we need to make sure that licensed laboratories that perform drinking water tests in northern communities need to be included to reflect the need for those resources.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
The “monitoring”, as you've mentioned, refers to general environmental public health factors on anything from potential foreign-born contamination to things called turbidity, which are things in the water....
There are two sets of environmental public health officers: ones who are employed by either communities or tribal councils, and then others who are supported by the first nations and Inuit health branch as part of Indigenous Services Canada. That test is happening.
The testing locations can vary greatly. I would say that, in many remote contexts, those samples are sent to southern facilities for testing for environmental public health factors. The ones south of 60 or in Canada along the U.S. border have been more proximate to first nations.
This is about the funding framework. It would consider the monitoring of those needs. It doesn't consider capital or the creation of new environmental health establishments as part of that review. It's more about whether the monitoring—and the quality of that monitoring relative to the standards and laws that first nations have put in place, whether it be Canada's drinking water guidelines or above and beyond those—is happening. Are those costs accounted for, and are they being monitored on a frequent and appropriate basis?
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you.
I have a quick follow-up question. Can the wording of subclause 27(2) be strengthened to say when that monitoring needs to happen? We have so many first nations who are in rural and remote communities that don't have access to those licensed laboratories.
Would it improve the bill to say that the monitoring needs to include licensed laboratories to perform drinking water tests in northern communities?
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
There's monitoring happening today, following Canada drinking water guidelines. That's how short-term and long-term drinking water advisories become manifest. It's not that there's a lack of monitoring happening today. The framework is saying that the cost must consider a variety of things, including capital, operations, the monitoring for public health guidelines, governance and the actual costs, including comparative and substantive equality costs. It's the full envelope of essentially what first nations control as part of their water system.
The transmission and the testing at different locations aren't expressly considered here, but it is certainly part of the testing regimes that happen now from coast to coast to coast. It's less about proximity, then, and more about whether it is happening and whether those costs are covered, moving it from point A to point B. That's what this provision is speaking to. It's covering the cost for both a physical monitoring of that water and then the testing of that water, wherever it may be in Canada.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you so much. You've helped to clarify that this monitoring is actually a really good context to include, because it could include, for example, the licensed laboratories. This is a good indication for first nations that this will be an instrument they could use to ensure that those tests that need to be performed need to be closer to their communities, especially if they're in northern communities. This helps to ensure that this framework is set within it.
Director General, Community Infrastructure Branch, Department of Indigenous Services
I would say that monitoring wherever it happens in Canada is less about proximity. In my mind, it's about whether that is happening at a licensed laboratory and according to Canada drinking water guidelines, or other guidelines to test water and ensure that it's safe for consumption. That is happening right now. This enshrines in legislation that the cost to cover monitoring will be borne as part of the minister's consultation and co-operation efforts.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much Ms. Idlout. I'm not seeing any further hands up for debate. I believe we can move to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
It's CPC-10. Shall CPC-10 carry? Enthusiastically on division—I like that.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We will now move on to the new BQ‑20.
Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you can see, the new BQ‑20 essentially seeks to integrate amendments BQ‑21, BQ‑22, BQ‑23, BQ‑24, BQ‑25 and BQ‑26, so we could save a lot of time if I had my colleagues' consent to adopt this amendment. Still, I think it's important for me to present my arguments to you.
If this amendment is adopted, we'll drop the others I just listed. If not, we'll do them one at a time. The fact remains that we think it was possible to group them together in a single amendment.
Essentially, we have to obtain certain information when consultations seem important, and the department can decide whether to take them into account. Since this information is considered important by first nations, in this case the Assembly of First Nations and the groups that came to testify, financial organizations, as well as reports from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we propose to take it into account during the minister's consultations.
BQ‑21 dealt with repairs and replacements. The systems in place are at different points in their useful life, and that aspect seems fundamental for replacement.
BQ‑22 was talking about legal fees arising from day-to-day operations relating to the exercise of jurisdiction over water. We all agree that the legal aspect weighs heavily with first nations.
BQ‑23 dealt with remoteness costs. This is a concept that has been talked about as well. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the government doesn't take these factors into account when it comes to distortions. I'll give you an example. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, construction costs are 30% higher than in southern Quebec. I can't even imagine how much higher the costs are for a first nation that isn't connected to other regions by road.
BQ‑24 dealt with insurance costs for existing systems. Standards are increasingly being imposed on every building element, and that means huge insurance costs. It's even more true for first nations, and very few insurers want to go there, so there are additional costs.
The same is true of the risk analysis attributed to first nations by their insurers, which was mentioned in BQ‑25. There are often persistent biases when it comes to first nations, and all of that generates costs that should be taken into account.
The purpose of BQ‑26 was to collect data on the gaps in the standards applicable to water services received by individuals, whereas the standards are the highest for non-indigenous people, compared to individuals from first nations. So there is an attempt here to create greater equity between ordinary Canadians, if you will, and first nations people.
We propose that all of these proposals be grouped into a single amendment. If that doesn't work, we'll do them separately. The fact remains that, in our opinion, it's essential to integrate each of these elements.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much for making our work easier today by combining several amendments, Mr. Lemire.
Colleagues, just for your information, as Monsieur Lemire said, if BQ-20 is adopted, BQ-21, NDP-57, NDP-59, BQ-25 and BQ-26 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. In addition to that, if BQ-20 is adopted, BQ-22, BQ-23, NDP-58 and BQ-24 cannot be moved, because they are redundant and there are line conflicts in French.
There are quite a few there, so I will repeat that. If BQ-20 is adopted, amendments NDP-57, NDP-59, BQ-21, BQ-25 and BQ-26 cannot be moved because of a line conflict. In addition to that, if BQ-20 is adopted, BQ-22, BQ-23, BQ-24 and NDP-58 cannot be moved, because they are redundant and there are line conflicts in the French version of the Bill.
With that, I open it up to debate. Is there any debate from members?