44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 5, 2024 02:00PM
- Jun/5/24 5:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is on behalf of the people of Treaty 6, 7 and 8 who have been stalwarts and champions in the protection of clean water for generations and, before the treaty, for thousands of years.
My question is directly pertaining to the lack of this government's ability to properly consult with those who are directly affected by this legislation. We know, for example, that the minister herself has claimed that she is meeting and co-developing this legislation, but first nations themselves have said to me that is not the case. When will the minister meet with Treaty 6, 7 and 8 members to ensure that they establish a bilateral treaty table on water?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:28:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the legislation is a significant step forward. The member talks about consultation; I can assure him that it has been a number of years, I believe it is close to five years now, that this legislation has been worked on. The consultations have been taking place for about five years, and without that consultation, we would not have the legislation that we have before us today.
As the previous questioner said, it is not like the bill is unanimously supported; not all stakeholders and parliamentarians are behind the legislation. I think that a vast majority see the true value of the legislation, which is at a state that is good to go to committee. Hopefully, the committee is able to deal with it in a timely fashion so that we can get it back to the House.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:29:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is part of a government that promised in its 2015 electoral campaign to end all drinking water advisories by 2020. Here we are in 2024, and there are still countless long-term drinking water advisories. Why has the government been so slow to act on something so critical as water?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:30:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in all fairness, I do not believe the government has been negligent at all on the issue. It has demonstrated its intentions virtually from the get-go, with the Prime Minister talking about establishing a new relationship with indigenous people and the Government of Canada, one of mutual respect, and that takes time. It has to be done properly.
We were very ambitious, in 2015, in making these commitments and they are materializing, maybe not in the exact time frame we had said back then, but I truly believe we have made significant progress. There is still more to come, but it is tangible, it is there and it is happening. Ultimately, I think that is where we are having an impact in a very positive way.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 5:32:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize the fact that indigenous leadership has been stepping up in a very significant way, and where it can, the government is enabling and empowering that leadership with positive results. For example, I just received a text with respect to Shoal Lake 40. I am very proud of the fact Ontario Public Works has awarded the Shoal Lake 40's water treatment facility, and the opportunities it provides for local procurement and employment, the 2022 project of the year for small municipalities and first nations award.
I am suggesting we have to make sure it is done right, with a lot of consultation. Working with and supporting indigenous communities and leadership is really important on this issue and we will continue to do so in the years ahead.
136 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
- Jun/5/24 5:33:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight what the member for Sydney—Victoria did.
This is National Indigenous History Month, which affords members, and all people of Canada, a better understanding and appreciation of history and the important role we all have to play when it comes to issues such as truth and reconciliation and clean drinking water. Although there are still drinking water advisories out there, we have advisory committees working to get rid of them.
The government, over the last number of years, has put Canada on the right track by supporting and enabling indigenous leadership to deal with this very serious problem, and we are getting closer to the finish line.
115 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 5:44:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member referred to the consultation process and had questions about it. I just want to amplify that, over the last five years, there has been a great deal of consultation that has taken place. One of the questions he had was in relation to treaties nos. 6, 7 and 8 first nations. Earlier this year, I know the minister had the opportunity to tune into what it was those first nations were saying about the legislation and the issue of getting rid of the boil water advisories.
We all understand and appreciate, as well as respect, the important leadership role that first nations are playing on this file, and we are working to enable and support that leadership. I believe that the minister has clearly demonstrated just how important that fact is. It might have potentially slowed down some projects more than others, but I think that is by far the best way to go.
Would the member not agree that working in consultation is so critically important?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:46:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree that working in consultation is the best way forward, but I would disagree with the level of consultation that the member claims the minister to have done. I do not doubt that there has not been any consultation, but when we hear that this is not true reconciliation and that communities do not accept this, it is clear that many nations have been overlooked in this process so far. They do not feel as though their voices are being heard.
It is very important that we have the time at the indigenous and northern affairs committee to bring all voices to the table to ensure that we get this legislation right.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:46:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at one point, my colleague said that it was important to think about both the quantity and quality of water. I completely agree with him.
Here is an example. In Nunavik, which is in northern Quebec, there are 14 communities where homes are not supplied with water, for example, from underground aqueducts. However, the situation is getting even worse there because, in addition to that, the melting permafrost is complicating everything.
Does my colleague agree with me that the issue of water quality is also linked to climate change?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:47:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would agree that there are a number of factors, including changing conditions, that do impact that. We have seen in my riding that a number of communities are facing very different seasons, such as shorter winter seasons, for example, that are impacting a number of things, including drinking water.
I think that the member rightly recognizes that it is about quantity and quality, ensuring that there is an adequate level of both of those things when it comes to clean drinking water. It is important, overarching, that the government works with each community to understand what that looks like for their community.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I often find it ironic to hear in this place criticism from the Conservatives of the Liberals, and vice versa, when so many times both parties have failed indigenous people. As a matter of fact, this legislation, Bill C-61, comes to this place because of a litigation of a Harper-era piece of legislation known as Bill S-6, which failed indigenous people, so much so that they had to take their concerns to court, have the Conservatives defeated, and then have this legislation be able to stand. This is better than what the Conservatives have tabled, for sure.
Would the member have anything to say to the many nations that had to litigate against his party's former legislation?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 5:49:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was not a member at that time, so I cannot speak specifically to how that played out, but I can share the concern with the member that this was brought forward at the end of litigation. It even took the government a year longer than it was supposed to take to table this legislation to address that.
The current government has been dragging its feet. I am sure that we can agree that it needs to do better.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour that I rise today to discuss an issue that is so important, an issue of paramount importance, an issue that cuts to the very heart of our values as a nation, and that is the necessity of clean, safe and reliable drinking water for our first nations communities. It is with this urgency that I address Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure on first nations lands.
For decades, first nations communities have suffered under the shadow of inadequate water infrastructure and services. This is not just an issue of policy. It is an issue of basic human rights and dignity. Clean drinking water is a fundamental necessity of life. It is not a privilege but a right that should be accessible to every single Canadian, irrespective of where they live. The lack of safe water in first nations communities is a national disgrace, and it is high time that we address this issue with the seriousness and commitment it deserves. As we know, this is an issue that the NDP-Liberal government has ignored for far too long. This debate is an important step toward ensuring that all first nations communities have access to something that many of us take for granted.
l will bring us back to 2015, when the member for Papineau, at that time the gentleman that was running to be our Prime Minister and who, indeed, became our Prime Minister, stood before Canadians with a handkerchief in his hand, and dabbed away a fake tear, and said that Canada's relationship with first nations is the most important relationship of his government.
We have seen, time and again, that the government has stumbled along the way. To understand this piece of legislation, one must look at the historical context. Decades have passed with the government pouring billions into solving this crisis, yet the problem still persists. From the plan of action for first nations drinking water in 2006 to the first nations water and waste water action plan in 2008 and the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act in 2013, efforts have been made, but sadly, these Liberals have fallen short of delivering concrete, sustainable solutions.
The Conservative Party recognizes that clean drinking water is a basic necessity of human life. It is essential for health, dignity and the overall well-being of individuals and communities, yet despite being in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, far too many first nations communities still do not have access to this fundamental right. This is nothing short of a national shame. It is an outrage that has persisted for far too long.
We have heard comments from our colleagues across the way, rightly so, I think, that there are successive governments on whose shoulders the blame squarely falls. Since 1995, over $11 billion has been spent on improving water quality in first nations communities. Despite these substantial investments, as of today, there are still countless first nations communities across Canada that are under long-term drinking water advisories. This means that, for years, families have not been able to drink the water directly from their taps, relying instead on bottled or boiled water just to meet their daily needs. This is unacceptable. This is shameful. It highlights a significant failure by the government to provide basic living conditions for all Canadians.
We need a new approach, a comprehensive and actionable plan that addresses both the immediate and long-term needs of these communities. I hope that Bill C-61 can be a positive step to achieving this goal. With that said, I am encouraged that Bill C-61 appears to aim at addressing this disparity. The time for half measures and temporary fixes are over.
As has been said, the bill is not a perfect bill. We still have questions regarding that. To that end, Conservatives believe that the federal government must work in collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities and first nations to develop a solution that is guided by a clear and agreed upon timeline. Conservatives also commit to working closely with indigenous communities to ensure that these investments are both sustainable and effective.
Furthermore, we understand that the lack of safe water for first nations communities is a complex issue that cannot be resolved with a one-size-fits-all approach. Each community has its unique challenges, circumstances and needs. There are over 630 first nations communities across our nation.
Therefore, it is vital that the solutions to safe water are led by first nations themselves. We must support their autonomy and provide them with the resources and authority to develop and implement water management plans that are suited to their specific needs. By prioritizing first nations leadership and knowledge, we can ensure that the solutions are not only practical, but also culturally appropriate and locally targeted.
In addition to addressing water safety, it is also necessary to acknowledge the broader context of reconciliation and health and safety for first nations communities. I have said this before: Under the current government, I believe “reconciliation” has become a buzzword. The government has pitted first nation against first nation, and first nation against non-first nation. It has picked winners and losers. It says it has consulted, yet there are still many first nations that have said they have not been invited to the table.
Reconciliation is not a single act but an ongoing commitment to understanding, healing and partnership. It requires acknowledging the historical injustices faced by indigenous peoples, including inadequate access to essential services. Unfortunately the current government has categorically failed when it comes to reconciliation. The government purports to be there for indigenous peoples, but it did not accomplish a single TRC call to action in 2023. In fact there are 94 calls to action, and 81, which is the vast majority, are still unfulfilled.
I want to also mention that many first nations communities continue to face significant barriers to accessing comprehensive health care services, including mental health care, especially in rural, remote and northern communities. The lack of access is a critical issue that directly impacts the well-being and quality of life of indigenous individuals. The disparities in health care services contribute to higher rates of chronic illness, mental health challenges and lower life expectancies in these communities. It is crucial to invest in health care infrastructure and services that are responsive to the needs of first nations communities. This includes culturally competent care that respects and integrates indigenous knowledge and practices.
Mental health care is a particularly urgent need. The trauma experienced by indigenous peoples due to historical injustices like residential schools has long-lasting effects on mental health. The link to Bill C-61 is that health and access to safe drinking water are fundamental human rights. Ensuring that all Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, have access to these necessities is a moral and ethical obligation. Failure to ensure access is a failure of governance.
On that note, let me take a moment to talk about Grassy Narrows First Nation, a community that has been suffering from mercury contamination for over five decades. The recent lawsuit filed by Grassy Narrows against the federal government underscores the severity of the crisis. For more than 50 years, the people of Grassy Narrows have endured the devastating health impacts of mercury poisoning. The contamination has caused significant neurological damage, economic hardship and the loss of cultural practices tied to the river and its resources.
Conservatives are supporting Bill C-61 to get it to committee. We are happy to get it to committee where we can hopefully have a great working relationship with our colleagues across all parties, but we do have concerns.
My hon. colleague from Kenora mentioned that the bill, with respect to consultation, says that the minister is to make best efforts to consult. What does that mean? Does it mean dialing the phone once and leaving a voice message? True consultation is not about just ticking a box; it is about making sure that we have indigenous leadership and indigenous representation at the table when we are discussing the bill and when we are developing it. It means truly understanding. It does not mean talking, but it means listening. Only through listening will we truly understand the needs of indigenous communities.
If the legislation is truly to succeed, the government must undertake a thorough review and overhaul of its approach to managing water quality advisories. There is no getting around it. The current system is not working, and it is time for a real change. We need to hear from all stakeholders and address their concerns head-on if we want Bill C-61 to actually achieve its stated goals.
That is not the only challenge we face. At the committee level, we need to dig deeper into several pressing questions. Some communities face barriers to long-term access to safe drinking water that money alone cannot solve. What are these barriers? How can we partner with the indigenous communities to overcome them?
We need to put away all of our biases and our political stripes when we come to the committee. We need to work in good faith to try to make sure that we can collectively end the boil water advisories.
1566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:00:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member concludes with a remark about all of us coming together at committee, and I really and truly hope that does take place.
His critique of the current government is interesting. In 2015, there were actually 105 boil water advisories, and as a government, we have actually ended 144 long-term boil water advisories. Think about that and then think about the legislation the Conservatives under Stephen Harper brought in. I was provided an interesting quote about Stephen Harper's legislation: “This legislation does not propose any solutions. Rather, the legislation puts first nations in the direct path of an oncoming freight train.” This is from Grand Chief Craig Makinaw, Confederacy of Treaty 6. It was recorded in Hansard in 2013.
Yes, there is room for improvement, but trying to give a false impression does a disservice when there is a government that is actually taking action that is moving us forward on this very important file.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:01:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question to my hon. colleague across the way is this: Why did it take nine years to accomplish this? Why did it take first nations' having to take the government to court for it to do anything?
We will take no suggestions or advisement from the gentleman across the way on first nations relationships. All we know is that the current government needs to act. Its members need to stop talking and start acting in solving the boil water advisories.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:02:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Madam Speaker, I would find it hilarious if this were not such a sad topic. The member actually cited the legislation that the Conservative government of the day put in place and that was litigated against, as a record of good benefit to his party. What irony it is that he mentions Bill S-8 as one of the best things that the Conservatives ever did.
I do not have a question, but I am going to inform the member: That legislation was litigated against as being paternalistic and as being legislation that breached the rights, the charter rights, of first nations people. We need to actually have truth and facts in this discussion. Does the member recognize that in order for us to solve the problem, you have to first recognize that you have done harm yourself? On behalf of the party, can he apologize to the first nations that had to take him to court?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/24 6:02:58 p.m.
- Watch
I hope the hon. member is not thinking that I have done harm.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
