44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 5, 2024 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, there are some very good things in Bill C‑61, that the member presented in his speech.
The bill promotes first nations' right to self-determination and self-government. Perfect, we are on the same wavelength.
However, there are some problematic things going on. I am not talking about what happened 10 or 15 years ago. I am talking about what is happening right now. There are problems with the Kearl mine in Alberta. What is more, 40 out of 41 first nations reject the Chalk River project and the government is not stepping in. This involves drinking water. The first nations are calling for the Chalk River development to be stopped and they are demanding their voices be heard.
I am all for easing our conscience, but maybe it is time to put words into action.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:33:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, treaties have been the foundation of Canada's attempt to take unceded land from indigenous peoples since the onset of the historic treaties. First nations feel as though these treaties are important and sacred when they are followed, but when not followed they pale in comparison to the desperate situation so many are facing.
Why has there been no recognition of the inherent treaty rights to water for the first nations in Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Manitoba represented by treaties 6, 7 and 8?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to be able to rise and talk to such an important issue as drinking water on first nations, dealing with Bill C-61. Before I get too far into my remarks, I would like to let members know that I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George. I look forward to hearing his comments on this very shortly.
This is obviously an important topic. It is one that, unfortunately, we are still talking about as a Parliament all these years later. We have seen the current government make a lot of big promises and announcements of a lot of big spending, and, unfortunately, most recent information from the government indicates that there are still 29 drinking water advisories that remain in 27 first nations across the country, 10 of which are in the Kenora district that I am representing. Those are namely Fort Hope, Neskantaga, Nibinamik, Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake, Muskrat Dam, North Caribou Lake, Sandy Lake, North Spirit Lake and Deer Lake, all still living under long-term drinking water advisories.
We know this is unacceptable. We know that it is a shame for Canada nationally and internationally to have this issue continue to plague us, and I am glad that we are here today finally debating Bill C-61. I do want to address that right off the hop, because we have heard the Minister of Indigenous Services and some other voices on the government side criticizing Conservatives, saying that we are blocking Bill C-61, which is absolutely ridiculous.
In fact, as the previous Liberal speaker mentioned, we passed a Conservative motion to expedite the passage of the bill to get it to committee, where we can do some important work on it and move it through the parliamentary process. It was a Conservative initiative to do that, but unfortunately, it has not been prioritized by the governing Liberal Party.
This is a trend we see every June, really. The government, at the last minute, tries to rush through legislation that pertains to first nations or indigenous peoples across the country. Consultation has not been adequate, the government has not gone through the proper steps, and it expects Parliament just to stamp it so the government can check a box before we rise for the summer. This is a very concerning trend. In fact, the government has had, by my count, 33 sitting days where the government has steered the agenda, and it has had the opportunity to bring this forward. Of course, this is not counting opposition days, even though some of those opposition days have been extended to include Government Orders. The government has had ample opportunity to bring this legislation forward.
Nonetheless, we are happy that we are here debating it today. As mentioned, there is some broad support for the aspirations and the intent of the legislation, but there is not unanimous support from stakeholders, first nations communities, leaders and groups right across the country.
I want to share some of the comments that have been made publicly in that regard. Chief Rupert Meneen of Tall Cree First Nation in Alberta has said that Bill C-61 “does not address existing needs and gaps in services, infrastructure, and monitoring on First Nations”. The chief goes on to say that as treaty peoples, they do not accept it.
Chief Bobby Cameron from Saskatchewan said, “As it stands, the federal water act announced today is not true reconciliation, it is an attempt to legalize the status quo”. Our first nations need more time. Don't rush this so quickly. It's as simple as that.
I will share one more that is out there. This is from a policy adviser to the Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services, representing 47 first nations in Alberta. Policy adviser Norma Large said it pretty simply: “The bottom line is that this bill is not meeting the mark”.
We have the government, on one hand, saying that it has co-developed this legislation, that there is support for it and that we need to rush it through the House of Commons with as little debate possible to get it through committee as quickly as possible, and I think there is goodwill on all sides of this House to expedite this legislation.
We have to make sure that we are addressing the concerns that are being raised. We cannot overlook or ignore the concerns of first nations peoples across the country. It is my hope that all members of the committee from all parties would ensure that we have the proper time and resources to do that, so we can bring first nations leaders to the table and share some more specifics about this legislation.
We also see some vague terms and things that are being kicked down the road in Bill C-61. There is a lot of work, and important work, that needs to be done that is not being addressed by this legislation that would be put off to future regulations. One example of that is the protection zones. The definition of a protection zone would be determined through future regulations as set out in this legislation. Of course, there should be collaboration with first nations, and territorial and provincial governments, to ensure that it is done right, but that work should already be under way. We need to have first nations leaders come to the committee to share their thoughts on what that should be and what that looks like for them in their communities so that we can get a jump on that important work and ensure that we are addressing those needs.
To quote from Bill C-61, the minister is to “make best efforts” to begin required consultation, which sounds great. That is a good sentiment, and I think everyone would share the sentiment. Yes, the minister should make best efforts. However, what does that mean? What is the tangible effect of making best efforts? That is at the very core of the concerns that we have heard, as has been raised by other members of the House during this debate already. We are just getting going in this discussion. The bill has not even been to committee yet, and we are already hearing of first nations who do not feel that they have been consulted with, so it is certainly not a good start in that regard.
With the time I have remaining, I just want to speak more to the bill specifically. The process is one thing. I hope that we will all agree to move this forward, and move it forward in a way that brings in voices from first nations and ensures that proper debate can happen.
To the bill itself, much of it is very simple and straightforward, including things such as ensuring that the quality and quantity of water on the first nations will, at the very least, meet provincial and territorial standards if nothing else. That is something that, when folks read it, they would question why that would not be the case already. Unfortunately, we have seen this, not just when it comes to drinking water, but also with housing as well. There are concerns that houses on first nations have not been built up to code in the area of jurisdiction, and this is just another example of first nations communities being shortchanged and overlooked by the government.
Simply, Conservatives recognize that clean drinking water is a necessity of human life and that the government must work with all first nations and indigenous communities to develop adequate, safe, clean drinking water for all communities. As I mentioned off the top, the lack of drinking water has really been a national shame for far too long.
This ties in with consultation. More important, we have to recognize that a one-size-fits-all solution, this top-down approach from Ottawa, is not going to work. That is why a consultation and the boots on the ground work. It means a meeting with first nations leaders to understand the unique circumstances and needs in the communities, ensuring that those voices are being heard so that we can develop solutions in partnership that work for those first nations.
That is the vision that the Conservative Party has. I think it is one that is shared by members across party lines in the House. We stand ready to work to expedite this along. Of course, we are hoping that, at committee, our colleagues from the other parties will work with us to ensure that all first nations are heard before this bill gets passed.
1461 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:30:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will go back to the issue of source water and what I was saying before in my speech about the community of Fort Chipewyan. The community is concerned in terms of the quality of its water and the impact that water might be having on the health of members of the community.
Alberta Health Services has the data to be able to do a longitudinal study of cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan. It was recommended by the environment committee many years ago that it be done, yet it has not been done. How should we go about getting the Alberta government to do that? If it will not do it, is there a way for the federal government to do it?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
