SoVote

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Eric Melillo

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

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/5/24 5:48:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-6 Bill C-61

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

Mr. Eric Melillo

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

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Jun/5/24 5:50:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-61

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Mr. Todd Doherty

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

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

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

S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Mr. Todd Doherty

Jun/5/24 6:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the hon. colleague had been listening to my speech, he would have heard that I said there was enough blame to go around successive governments. An hon member: He said that. Mr. Todd Doherty: I did say that. If my hon. colleague wanted to cast aspersions against me and my speech, he should probably have listened to what I had to say to begin with.

68 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/5/24 6:03:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the bill, funding is a key element of this whole issue. The construction, administration and maintenance of water management infrastructure requires significant, recurring and predictable funding. Does the member feel that this bill seriously addresses the issue of funding? In his opinion, is the language in the bill still somewhat superficial with regard to funding, or is something really significant being proposed that would enable adequate funding to be put in place?

75 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Jun/5/24 6:04:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize to our hon. colleague as I am not sure whether she is asking my point of view or whether she is asking whether the language in the text of the bill is confusing. We do definitely have concerns with some of the language within the bill. These are things I hope our colleagues are able to raise, and I hope they can get amendments at committee.

70 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/5/24 6:04:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-61

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach. I really welcome the legislation and the debate. I have been interested in the issue for some time. As a matter of fact, the House environment committee is currently completing a rather broad and lengthy study of water policy in Canada, specifically federal water policy. We did have a unit, a module if I can call it that, on the issue of first nations water. We heard great testimony, but given time constraints and the breadth of our study, in some ways we could only scratch the surface. Therefore I am really looking forward to getting to know the bill much more deeply. I hope to attend the committee meetings. I am looking to maybe substitute for another Liberal member so I can be part of the committee study on Bill C-61. If I cannot do that, I will avail myself of my privilege as a parliamentarian to sit at committee, even without formal status and the right to ask questions. There is one thing that makes me bristle a little in this debate generally, not just today but over time, and that is when the debate veers into certain partisanship. I just do not feel it is a partisan issue. I do not feel it is an issue that should revolve around cross-party criticisms or finger pointing. The important thing is to really work together to find a solution to a very stubborn problem that has plagued first nations and governments wanting to solve the problem for quite a long time. It is a very important issue for a number of reasons, the main one being that clean drinking water and water for sanitation are very much fundamental to good health. It is a health issue for our first nations. Water generally is central to many things, not only human health but also the health of the environment and the dynamism of the economy, but, in this case, we are talking about the health of indigenous peoples. It is also an emblematic issue. What I mean by that is if we cannot get this right, how can we have—

367 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/5/24 6:07:46 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Jun/5/24 6:07:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a matter of courtesy to first nations, the Speaker made a ruling in relation to the use of possessive language when speaking of indigenous people. I would request that you intervene to clarify that, please.

38 words