SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/5/24 6:08:04 p.m.
Watch

I did not hear what the hon. member said, but I would invite him to retract it.

17 words

Retract

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:08:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not remember, to be honest, but I will retract anything that could be heard as offensive.

20 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

Jun/5/24 6:08:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am referring to the use of possessive language such “our” or “my”. In this case, it was the use of “our first nations”.

32 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:08:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand and I apologize. I am aware of that. I slipped a bit.

16 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:08:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-61

It is an emblematic issue because if we cannot solve this problem in conjunction with first nations, how can we have confidence that we can manage our water resources more generally in this country? It is an important issue because it involves the health of first nations, and it is an emblematic issue because it says a lot about how we can manage water in general in this country. It is one of the most stubborn and complex issues to face any government in Canada, and it not only requires money, but also requires major investments. For example, what I have read recently is that, as we know, one of the issues in terms of bringing clean drinking water to first nations is sustainable financing for maintenance of first nations water systems. I have read somewhere that the funding requirement over a 10-year period, from 2016 to 2026, is about $430 million, yet there is only about $291 million available. Therefore, there is a need to increase funding for maintenance of first nations water systems. Now, what I have heard, on the positive side, is that since 2021, Indigenous Services Canada pays 100% of maintenance costs; whereas before, it only paid about 80%. What has been required all along in dealing with this issue is not only the financing, but also the will to make it a priority. This is not to cast aspersions on any previous government. I do believe that there has been a serious commitment to resolving the issue by this government. I did not see this for myself, but I am told that at one point, the minister in charge at the time basically put up a map in her office and pinpointed where all the problem drinking water systems were. She would be able to see this map every day and would be reminded that this is a major government priority. Therefore, the will to do something about this problem is fundamental to solving the problem. As I said, I intend to be a part of a committee study, and one of the issues that I hope to learn more about as we study the bill at committee is how we can better protect source water. Clean drinking water not only is dependent on the kind of system that is in place or built in a first nations community, but also is a function of the source water. As a matter of fact, the kind of system they build is a function of the source water as well. How do we protect source water? I first became aware of the issue of source water about 10 years ago when I sat on the environment committee. It was a minority Conservative government at the time, and we undertook a study of the impact of the oil sands on the Athabasca Watershed. There were concerns downstream from the oil sands operations, basically in Fort Chipewyan, that the drinking water was being contaminated by the oil sands industry. That, in itself, is a source water problem and a source water issue. How do we protect source water so that first nations can have confidence in their drinking water? How do we protect source water when a lot of the source water is in provincial jurisdiction and a province is managing economic development in its jurisdiction? How do we get the province to co-operate with the federal government and first nations to protect the source water? As a matter of fact, the whole issue of source water and the oil sands came up again at the environment committee when we were studying the leaks and spills at the Kearl tailings pond. Again, the first nation in Fort Chipewyan is very concerned about how the oil sands and how this particular spill could be impacting the first nation's source water downstream. How do we protect source water? How do we manage the interface between jurisdictions to make sure that we can protect source water in the best interests of those who are downstream and are consuming that water? I hope to learn more about this when I attend the committee study of Bill C-61. I am pleased to say that there has been progress since our government took power in 2016. There were 144 long-term drinking water advisories in place in November 2015. There are now 29 left in 27 communities. Sometimes an advisory will be lifted, but then it will recur or one will recur elsewhere in the same community. There has been progress. I do not think we should say that there has been no progress because that does not do any good. It just discourages Canadians and governments from doing what they can to solve the problem once and for all. The bill is very important for three particular reasons. One, it affirms the inherent right of first nations to self-government in relation to water, source water, drinking water, waste water and related infrastructure. Two, it creates a legal framework for protecting source water adjacent to first nation lands, which is what I was referring to.

855 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/5/24 6:15:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting. I think he is suffering from extreme optimism. Canada, which has the largest supply of drinking water in the world, is unable to provide its citizens with safe drinking water. My colleague said that progress has been made and we should be happy with that. The Liberal Party's promise in 2015 was to provide clean drinking water to indigenous communities. It has not been able to keep that promise. It is all well and good to say that progress has been made, but why is it that, after nine years in power, the government introduced a bill saying that more action is needed? There is a lack of seriousness, much like there was with the electoral reform promise the Liberal Party made in 2015. I would like my colleague to explain, as optimistically as he likes, what legislation needs to provide, nine years down the line, in order to give people access to a resource as basic as clean drinking water.

171 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:16:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that I was being overly optimistic. I was very clear and I said that the challenges were enormous. The fact remains that there are far fewer boil water advisories than there were in 2015. The situation is far from perfect. Additional funding is required to solve all these issues. There are systems that are on the verge of being operational. In 1% of cases, a feasibility study is under way. We have made quite a bit of progress, but the purpose of the bill is to consolidate the progress that has been made so far. The bill is not going to correct the situation entirely. Funding will. We are getting on with the job. As for this bill, it will create a framework for the future while consolidating the progress that has been done so far.

142 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/5/24 6:18:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his commitment to see this through to committee stage and to hopefully see some meaningful amendments. I also want to thank the member not only for retracting his statement in my point of order earlier, but also for dividing his time. It really means a lot to me to be able to speak to this important issue. In regard to the definition of first nations lands in the legislation, I am told by treaty organizations that the definition is too narrow and that it does not fully acknowledge treaty rights and interests that extend those colonial boundaries, also known as reserve lands. Would the member be amicable to seeing amendments to the definition portion of this legislation, particularly when it comes to the definition of first nations lands beyond just the narrow description provided by the Indian Act, which is reserve lands?

150 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:18:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, from my point of view. I think this is a major problem. We have oil sands operations on Treaty No. 8 land, yet somehow we cannot control the damage that is being done to those treaty lands. There is a problem somewhere. The member knows much more about this than I do. If the problem is in the definitions, and if there is a way to expand those definitions, then I would be in favour of that.

83 words

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

Jun/5/24 6:19:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts about the relationship that has been established and the general commitment the government has made, with regard to boil water advisories. At one point, when we first took office, there were 105 boil water advisories. We have actually gotten rid of over 140. What are the member's thoughts about the general movement, in terms of the government recognizing the issue, and about actually putting financial resources and things like today's legislation in place to protect the water?

90 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Jun/5/24 6:20:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have invested more over a long period of time. The other point I would like to make is that the government actually created a department to deal specifically with indigenous services. It reorganized government so that it could better attack this problem, and I think that is important.

51 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 325