AANO Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met at 8:45 a.m. this day, in Room 362, East Block, the Chair, Chris Warkentin, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The witnesses answered questions.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the Preamble and Clause 1, Short Title, are postponed.

The Chair calls Clause 2.

Clause 2 was allowed to stand.

On Clause 3,

“Act, 1982.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

“Act, 1982.”

Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Clause 3.1,

APPLICATION

“3.1 This Act does not apply to a First Nation for three years after the day on which this section comes into force if, on that day, the First Nation is a First Nation as defined in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Land Management Act.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill S-8 provides in its section 2 a definition of First Nation in relation to subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act and not in relation to the First Nations Land Management Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill S-8 and is therefore inadmissible.

On Clause 4,

“(b.1) the preparation and implementation of a drinking water safety plan;

(b.2) the audit of drinking water safety plans by third parties and the results of such an audit;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the result of the vote on the previous amendment be applied to the following amendment which is therefore also negatived:

““drinking water safety plan” means a plan involving a comprehensive assessment of the risk factors that could adversely affect the quality of water delivered to consumers in order to achieve a location-specific understanding of all sources in the system and all stages, from treatment and monitoring to distribution to consumers, — carried out in a manner as can be understood and implemented by local operational personnel and audited by third parties.”

“Nation lands as well as emergency response protocols.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

“(4) In recommending a date to the Governor in Council for the coming into force of regulations made under subsections (1) to (3), the Minister or the Minister of Heath, or both Ministers, as the case may be, must take into account the capacity of each First Nation to comply with the prescribed standards, to install their drinking water system and waste water system and to train the operators of those systems.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

On Clause 5,

“(c.1) establish a system of capital infrastructure lifecycle planning so that future capital needs are known and expected and can be appropriately budgeted for at the local, regional and national level;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

“(d.1) establish a participant funding program that facilitates the participation of the public in the implementation of the drinking water system and the waste water system;”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because the amendment provides for the establishment of a participant funding program where moneys would be drawn from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states at pages 767-768:

“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, as the amendment does infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it requires a Royal Recommendation and therefore is inadmissible.

“(k.1) require public disclosure of information relating to the quality of drinking water or to waste water;”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.

“under the regulations, clearly establish the roles and responsibilities of each person and body, and specify the penal-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 6 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.

On Clause 7,

“(2) 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.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because Bill S-8 Bill provides in its section 7 that the regulations made under its provisions prevail over any laws or by-laws made by first nations. The proposed amendment provides that a law or by-laws made by a First Nation could prevail over the regulations made under the provisions of Bill S-8.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd Edition) states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment attempts to introduce a new concept that is contrary to the principle of Bill S-8 and is therefore inadmissible.

Clause 7 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On new Clause 7.1,

“7.1 (1) No regulation is to be made by the Governor in Council under section 4 unless the Minister or the Minister of Health or both Ministers, as the case may be, have first caused the proposed regulation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) A proposed regulation that is laid before a House of Parliament is deemed to be automatically referred to the appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed regulation and report its findings to that House.

(3) The Governor in Council may make a regulation under section 4 only if

(a) neither House has concurred in any report from its committee respecting the proposed regulation before the end of 30 sitting days or 160 calendar days, whichever is earlier, after the day on which the proposed regulation was laid before that House, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form laid; or

(b) both Houses have concurred in reports from their committees approving the proposed regulation or a version of it amended to the same effect, in which case the regulation may be made only in the form concurred in.

(4) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which the House in question sits.

(5) A regulation may be made without being laid before each House of Parliament if the Minister or the Minister of Health or both Ministers, as the case may be, are of the opinion that

(a) the changes made by the regulation to an existing regulation are so immaterial or insubstantial that subsections (1) to (4) should not apply in the circumstances; or

(b) the regulation must be made immediately in order to protect the health or safeguard the safety of the public.

(6) If a regulation is made without being laid before each House of Parliament, the Minister or the Minister of Health or both Ministers, as the case may be, must cause to be laid before each House a statement of the reasons why it was not.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 8 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 9 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 10 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 11 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 14 was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 4.

As a result of the vote on Clause 14, the following amendment is adopted:

That Bill S-8, in Clause 2, be amended by

(a) deleting lines 12 and 13 on page 2;

(b) deleting lines 21 to 23 on page 2.

On new Clause 14.1,

“14.1 (1) Within five years after this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and of the regulations made under this Act must be undertaken by such committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the Senate and the House of Commons for that purpose.

(2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as may be authorized by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be, submit a report on the review to Parliament, including a statement of any changes that the committee recommends.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jean Crowder and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 15 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 1, Short Title, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The Schedule was negatived by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 3.

Clause 2, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

On Preamble,

“Whereas the constant supply of safe drinking water to First Nations is a knowledge-intensive skilled undertaking;

Whereas international best practices for supplying safe drinking water has evolved towards the implementation of drinking water safety plans as the most effective and sustainable approach;

Whereas the safety of drinking water delivered to consumers fundamentally relies upon the consistent and efficient operation of water treatment and distribution facilities;

Whereas, with regard to a drinking water safety plan, a comprehensive assessment of the risk factors that could adversely affect the quality of water delivered to consumers must be carried out — in order to achieve a location-specific understanding of all sources in the system and all stages, from treatment and monitoring to distribution to consumers — in such a manner as can be understood and implemented by local operational personnel and audited by third parties;

Whereas implementation of an effective drinking water safety plan approach requires engagement of First Nations communities and their commitment to the training and support of operational personnel to allow such personnel to fully understand the capabilities and limitations of their water systems in accordance with such a plan;

Whereas the Government of Canada maintains a program to fund investments in water infrastructure and operations;”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because the proposed amendment aims to amend the Preamble of Bill S-8.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd 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 the opinion of the Chair, as no amendment has been adopted that warrants this amendment, it is therefore inadmissible.

The Preamble carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The Bill, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

The question: "Shall the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House?" was put and was agreed to by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

At 10:45 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.