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
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mrs. Atwin.
Not seeing any further debates at this point, we can call a vote. Shall G-10 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division)
(Clause 44 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 2)
This takes us all the way back to the definitions clause, clause 2.
We're at NDP-1.
Before turning the floor over to Ms. Idlout, I'll just mention that I will have something to say about NDP-1 if it's moved.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik.
NDP-1 is an amendment that was submitted to the committee by the Six Nations of the Grand River. They are hoping that in clause 2, the definition of “First Nation governing body” be slightly amended to read as follows:
First Nation governing body means a legally recognized council, legally recognized government or other entity that is legally authorized to act on behalf or
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
This amendment seeks to make a substantive modification to “First Nations governing body” in the interpretation clause. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Moving on, the next amendment is NDP-4.
I will open the floor to Ms. Idlout, but also mention that I will have something to say about NDP-4.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
I hope you know what that means now, because I've said it so often: Thank you, Chair.
NDP-4 was submitted to us by the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council. It recommends making an amendment that Bill C-61, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 5 with the following:
and distribution of water intended for drinking or cooking or for
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
We were waiting to make a ruling on this, depending on what kinds of amendments came up through the bill. Similarly to NDP-1, the amendment seeks to make a substantive modification to the “water services” definition in the interpretation clause.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause.
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Ms. Idlout, would you like to challenge that decision?
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Yes, I do want to challenge the chair because NDP-4 was adding “cooking”. I don't know how that is beyond what your ruling is suggesting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
That will bring us to a vote as to whether the ruling of the chair will be sustained.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
We don't understand the ruling. I understand that the chair ruled, but can the chair explain to me, as someone who drinks water in a first nations community, boils water and cooks things in water in a first nations community, what the difference is?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'll turn it over to the legislative clerk on this one to explain that in further detail, just for members' clarification.
Michelle Legault Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The rule here is not necessarily about the concept. It's that the rule states that, in order to amend a definition in the interpretation clause of the bill, there first has to be an amendment adopted in the body of the bill that can justify it. That's what was missing here. It's that there was no amendment to the body of the bill that justified the addition of the word “cooking”. That's what was missing, in our advice.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
In the the legislation that we amended, we used different practical purposes of water and we also used “cultural and spiritual”. Culturally and spiritually, we would have cooked.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
This will come to a vote. You can vote to overturn the decision of the chair. I won't take it personally—I promise.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 11; yeas 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
All right. No hard feelings here.
NDP-4 has been moved. I will open it up to debate.
Not seeing any interventions, shall NDP-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik to the committee for supporting cooking as a cultural activity; that was wonderful.
NDP-5 is an amendment submitted to us by File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council, and it seeks, in clause 2, to add “(c) the protection of groundwater and aquifers” under the definition of “water services”.
Qujannamiik.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
NDP-5 has been moved, so I'll open it up to debate. At this point, I see Mr. Melillo has his hand up, so we'll start there.
Conservative
Eric Melillo Conservative Kenora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Quickly, I wonder if this would already be covered in paragraph (a), if not explicitly. Would it fall into any of those categories—“public or private collection, storage, treatment and distribution of water intended for drinking or for sanitation or hygiene purposes”—in paragraph (a)?
That's just a clarifying question for me, if the officials have thoughts.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
Yes, in terms of drinking water systems and in terms of private systems, for example, aquifers and groundwater are components of those systems; that would be included.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Melillo.
Is there any other debate on NDP-5?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
That takes us to new clause 14.1, which was stood, and NDP-24.
I will turn the floor over to Ms. Idlout to resume debate on new clause 14.1, which was stood some time ago.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I need a couple minutes to find it.
I did ask for a list of the items that were stood. Can I have a couple of minutes just to find it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
This is NDP-24, which is new clause 14.1. It's on page 34 of the package.
Mr. Battiste, go ahead.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm wondering if the clerks could circulate a list of the things that we parked, because, generally, if we parked something that was contentious maybe a few days ago, we don't know if it's contentious for the duration. It would be great if we had a short pause so that could be compiled and sent to us so we would know what's remaining when we get back. I think that would help everyone in the room.